undefined | Better HN

0 pointsvolgo8y ago0 comments

The thing is with modern journalism, anyone can publish anything, how do you know it's worth digesting? It's impossible for you to fact check everything in an article, nor is it possible for you know the future. Therefore trust is essential to reading and accepting an idea.

There's no guarantee of quality other than the author's credential and history. If an author repeatedly makes incorrect and outlandish claim, why would you give his future articles the benefit of the doubt?

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

wainstead8y ago· 1 in thread

> There's no guarantee of quality other than the author's credential and history.

Actually, a publication like the New York Times purports to have a strict editorial process. If Krugman were to write an op/ed piece claiming Martians understand economics better than Jovians but not as well as Venusians, the NYT probably wouldn't publish it.

So in addition to "credential" and "history" you can add "editorial vetting" or something worded similarly.

volgoOP8y ago

Right so then it's the NYT's credential that's on the line. The point is, questioning an author's history or the author's editorial company's history is completely within reason.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse