Donald I, emperor of the world.

[briantrumpet]

Perhaps they like to check things properly before making kneejerk comments like the experts on social media.

Proper checking does of course take some time, and well done to Verify for doing this within 12 hours, but news sources that do immediate coverage, such as the initial BBC report here, ought to at a minimum include caveats about the likely veracity of claims, based on the reputation of the people making the claims. It's not as if there aren't multiple documented cases of Trump flat-out lying in his claims... and they certainly should revise articles when the claims are proven to be false.

 

[laurentian]

Proper checking does of course take some time, and well done to Verify for doing this within 12 hours, but news sources that do immediate coverage, such as the initial BBC report here, ought to at a minimum include caveats about the likely veracity of claims, based on the reputation of the people making the claims. It's not as if there aren't multiple documented cases of Trump flat-out lying in his claims...

I suspect that the tendency of the president to sue organizations who print or broadcast anything that he disagrees with to the tune of billions leads them to be especially cautious when reporting anything other than his actual words until such a time that they have had the opportunity to fact check those words.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Proper checking does of course take some time, and well done to Verify for doing this within 12 hours, but news sources that do immediate coverage, such as the initial BBC report here, ought to at a minimum include caveats about the likely veracity of claims, based on the reputation of the people making the claims. It's not as if there aren't multiple documented cases of Trump flat-out lying in his claims... and they certainly should revise articles when the claims are proven to be false.

I disagree. Report what happened or was said and then verify once it has been checked. Otherwise you will have to add the same rider to reports on every politician, not just the ones you disagree with.

 

[briantrumpet]

I suspect that the tendency of the president to sue organizations who print or broadcast anything that he disagrees with to the tune of billions leads them to be especially cautious when reporting anything other than his actual words until such a time that they have had the opportunity to fact check those words.

For sure: that's why he sues for billions, to get organisations to comply in advance, while actions are pending either against the actual organisation, or a similar one. It doesn't really matter whether the action has any merit, but in the BBC's case the $10bn claim is there to frighten it and its jounalists and lawyers.

But that doesn't prevent them putting in caveats along with the reporting. Clearly the BBC isn't concerned about Verify being sued (or if they are, they know they are on firm ground).

 

[icowden]

Not that you'd get any idea about that from the BBC report. Not one fact-check.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2d7x6zrwro

Slightly unfair Brian. Fact checking a deranged two hour ramble and trying to get the results into a coherent news article takes a bit of time you know!

 

[briantrumpet]

I disagree. Report what happened or was said and then verify once it has been checked. Otherwise you will have to add the same rider to reports on every politician, not just the ones you disagree with.

Two points here:

That specific report is not 'just reporting what happened': he's relishing the spectacle e.g.

And there's no hint anywhere that anything Trump said might be misleading, despite noting that it "cited similar statistics" (which could easily have been caveated with "many which have been proven as misleading") . A journalist's job should imply some sort of fact-checking: if Rupert Lowe said "Keir Starmer is a paedophile", to report that with no push-back would be gross negligence.

 

[Pinno718]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmlzg0p8k2o

. . . now they've had a bit of time to check . . . with predictable findings

Broadcast the news in anodyne style and then have another program 'BBC verify'.
Nice to know our TV licence fee represents great vfm.

 

[laurentian]

Broadcast the news in anodyne style and then have another program 'BBC verify'.
Nice to know our TV licence fee represents great vfm.

Have a think!

It's not an opinion column - hence the "anodyne" nature of the primary report.

With the combination of reporting "verbatim" and BBC Verify, you get what was said and what the verifiable truth is. Either in isolation will tell you one of what was said (is it wise to take this as read?), or a list of verifiable "facts" on the US. The way this has been reported using both exposes a certain amount of BS on the part of the president - I would say that's better journalism

 

[briantrumpet]

Nice one! Though probably a bit riskier than I'd be prepared to be with my savings...

 

[briantrumpet]

A journalist's job should imply some sort of fact-checking: if Rupert Lowe said "Keir Starmer is a paedophile", to report that with no push-back would be gross negligence.

Oh.

 

[CXRAndy]

Interesting


View: https://x.com/i/status/2026341416742301923

 

[CXRAndy]

USA, USA, USA


View: https://x.com/i/status/2026484745006363079

 

[CXRAndy]

Primary goal of government Protect your own citizens first and foremost


View: https://x.com/i/status/2026516838822072353

 

[laurentian]

A journalist's job should imply some sort of fact-checking: if Rupert Lowe said "Keir Starmer is a paedophile", to report that with no push-back would be gross negligence.

It absolutely is not "gross negligence" it would be accurately reporting what Rupert Lowe said!

Further journalism may prove his claim to be right or wrong but that is a completely different thing.

 

[briantrumpet]

It absolutely is not "gross negligence" it would be accurately reporting what Rupert Lowe said!

Further journalism may prove his claim to be right or wrong but that is a completely different thing.

No. The same report should give context, even if it's just "Lowe offered no corroborating evidence for his claim", if there was none. If there was evidence offered, then it should be checked. That is literally a journalist's job.