![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackAre there any standards of journalistic integrity? Should there be? Truths about people (eg. so-and-so is a fraudster) are protected by libel laws. Dangerous truths (eg. "giant asteroid heading for earth, loot now!") by various laws.
But plain old truths? Obviously it's a disaster[1] to require people to prove every statement they make, freedom of speech would evaporate instantly. But should it be possible to prevent people spreading lies that don't immediately harm anyone?
What about textbooks asserting that atoms are individual? Printing lies about someone whose reputation is already ruined? Printing lies about history?
On the one hand, we have dipped our toes in this water with holocaust denial laws, and it made me uncomfortable -- I agree with the aims, but preventing people saying things because they're false is worrying precedent when it's not clear who decides false.
On the other hand, I cringe when I see supposedly reputable sources lying. What set me off was an article describing the etymology of the word "tip" in the sense of gratuity. In the text it said "was said to originate" but was printed as fact in the side article.
OK, journalists don't understand the scientific method, we get it. But it's not so hard! THAT seventeenth century acronym really wasn't an acronym. Neither were the next nine. But I'm sure this new one, TIP, really did mean "to insure promptness"![2]
I mean, the following facts fall square into any English education:
* The meaning of the word "ensure" and "insure" (yes, they might have shifted, but shouldn't you explain that?)
* The commonality or lack thereof of 17th acronyms
* How to use google.
Certainly, it's possible that OED, snopes, and etymonline are wrong and you're right. We always have to be open to people challenging conventional wisdom, that's the point I'm making. Don't just post a bald fact -- essentially calling your customers idiots for supposing there was any doubt, since if any educated person might have heard of it, they'd have acknowledged it... Say *why* every etymological source is wrong and you're right.
Would an acceptable compromise be not to *ban* people printing unpalatable lies, but allow, under some circumstances, an injunction making them mark it "government certified lie"? Then, if you believe the reasoning, you can trust the source anyway. But if you don't know, you are alerted to be doubtful.
That rings true both for so-called "government certified lies" that I think are false -- eg. holocaust denial -- and those I think are true -- eg. evolution.
[1] Pun.
[2] Someone should fill me in on the details. I know enough that "CABAL" may have been used an amusing acronym, but was apparently a pre-existing word first, and most acronyms weren't. But enough not to report either as truth without checking some sources.
But plain old truths? Obviously it's a disaster[1] to require people to prove every statement they make, freedom of speech would evaporate instantly. But should it be possible to prevent people spreading lies that don't immediately harm anyone?
What about textbooks asserting that atoms are individual? Printing lies about someone whose reputation is already ruined? Printing lies about history?
On the one hand, we have dipped our toes in this water with holocaust denial laws, and it made me uncomfortable -- I agree with the aims, but preventing people saying things because they're false is worrying precedent when it's not clear who decides false.
On the other hand, I cringe when I see supposedly reputable sources lying. What set me off was an article describing the etymology of the word "tip" in the sense of gratuity. In the text it said "was said to originate" but was printed as fact in the side article.
OK, journalists don't understand the scientific method, we get it. But it's not so hard! THAT seventeenth century acronym really wasn't an acronym. Neither were the next nine. But I'm sure this new one, TIP, really did mean "to insure promptness"![2]
I mean, the following facts fall square into any English education:
* The meaning of the word "ensure" and "insure" (yes, they might have shifted, but shouldn't you explain that?)
* The commonality or lack thereof of 17th acronyms
* How to use google.
Certainly, it's possible that OED, snopes, and etymonline are wrong and you're right. We always have to be open to people challenging conventional wisdom, that's the point I'm making. Don't just post a bald fact -- essentially calling your customers idiots for supposing there was any doubt, since if any educated person might have heard of it, they'd have acknowledged it... Say *why* every etymological source is wrong and you're right.
Would an acceptable compromise be not to *ban* people printing unpalatable lies, but allow, under some circumstances, an injunction making them mark it "government certified lie"? Then, if you believe the reasoning, you can trust the source anyway. But if you don't know, you are alerted to be doubtful.
That rings true both for so-called "government certified lies" that I think are false -- eg. holocaust denial -- and those I think are true -- eg. evolution.
[1] Pun.
[2] Someone should fill me in on the details. I know enough that "CABAL" may have been used an amusing acronym, but was apparently a pre-existing word first, and most acronyms weren't. But enough not to report either as truth without checking some sources.