<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Should journalists be truth vigilantes? Hell, yeah!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ojr.org/p2047/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ojr.org/p2047/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=p2047</link>
	<description>Focusing on the future of digital journalism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 07 Apr 2013 15:02:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave LaFontaine</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/p2047/#comment-2789</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave LaFontaine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:28:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=2047#comment-2789</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s interesting to see this issue break out into the open like this. In retrospect, the only thing that&#039;s surprising is that it&#039;s taken this long. Consider: internet sites like Snopes &amp; PolitiFact owe their very existence to the breakdown of trust in our existing news institutions on the part of the audience. We read stuff (often sent via e-mail from the semi-mythical disgruntled conspiracy theorist uncle). Checking our newspaper/TV/radio/whatever, there&#039;s a he-said/she-said story. So we go elsewhere to figure out if what we were originally sent is true or not.

Steve Yelvington long ago identified this as the most crucial (but neglected) part of the media in a societal ecosystem: being the &quot;Town Expert.&quot; (The other two roles are of &quot;Town Crier&quot; and &quot;Town Square&quot; - which media orgs more or less have a handle on.)

Can&#039;t tell you the number of proposed startups that came through the Knight News Challenge in the last two years aimed at resolving this basic issue - how can we trust what we read? Many of them are seeking to assign some kind of a numeric &quot;reliability score&quot; to the source of the information. Which is interesting in theory - a published climate scientist getting a 99 score, for example, while a Big Oil-funded hack gets a 12.

But in practice, systems like this would probably fall prey to the same phenomenon that plagues Digg or other sites that rely on crowdsourcing to determine importance/credibility -- the efforts of a committed radical few to rig the results in their favor. Still, it would be interesting to see a major media outlet start to offer little links in superscript next to attribution, that lead back to a page describing where that quote came from, who the person is, and what their history/agenda is.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s interesting to see this issue break out into the open like this. In retrospect, the only thing that&#8217;s surprising is that it&#8217;s taken this long. Consider: internet sites like Snopes &#038; PolitiFact owe their very existence to the breakdown of trust in our existing news institutions on the part of the audience. We read stuff (often sent via e-mail from the semi-mythical disgruntled conspiracy theorist uncle). Checking our newspaper/TV/radio/whatever, there&#8217;s a he-said/she-said story. So we go elsewhere to figure out if what we were originally sent is true or not.</p>
<p>Steve Yelvington long ago identified this as the most crucial (but neglected) part of the media in a societal ecosystem: being the &#8220;Town Expert.&#8221; (The other two roles are of &#8220;Town Crier&#8221; and &#8220;Town Square&#8221; &#8211; which media orgs more or less have a handle on.)</p>
<p>Can&#8217;t tell you the number of proposed startups that came through the Knight News Challenge in the last two years aimed at resolving this basic issue &#8211; how can we trust what we read? Many of them are seeking to assign some kind of a numeric &#8220;reliability score&#8221; to the source of the information. Which is interesting in theory &#8211; a published climate scientist getting a 99 score, for example, while a Big Oil-funded hack gets a 12.</p>
<p>But in practice, systems like this would probably fall prey to the same phenomenon that plagues Digg or other sites that rely on crowdsourcing to determine importance/credibility &#8212; the efforts of a committed radical few to rig the results in their favor. Still, it would be interesting to see a major media outlet start to offer little links in superscript next to attribution, that lead back to a page describing where that quote came from, who the person is, and what their history/agenda is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>