• Hikermick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    When reading hard news from an outlet that actually hires journalists I consider that to be the source.

    When reading opinion I definitely do a bit more digging, keeping an eye out for half truths. I wouldn’t consider this to be journalism

    • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      When reading hard news from an outlet that actually hires journalists I consider that to be the source. […]

      For clarity, do you mean that you don’t care if they cite their claims?

      • Hikermick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        They are the citation. They are the one reporting it as fact. I’m not saying to believe everything you read but they are the ones putting their reputation on the line. Opinion commentators can say whatever they want because it’s their opinion. Big difference.

        • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          They are the citation. They are the one reporting it as fact. I’m not saying to believe everything you read but they are the ones putting their reputation on the line. […]

          I agree that it would make it statistically likely that their claims are accurate, but their reputation isn’t proof of their claim’s veracity [1].

          References
          1. “Argument from authority”. Wikipedia. Published: 2024-10-22T14:01. Accessed: 2024-12-12T06:52Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority.
            • ¶1-¶2.

              An argument from authority is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument.

              The argument from authority is a logical fallacy, and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible.