It's not about truth. It's about bothsidesism in the face of a political climate where an utterly false narrative has big following.
(1) Make it transparent what's being treated as fake news. Publish a list of long-term and current-trending topics.
-
-
(2) Be intentionally broad. Don't call a climate article fake for one misinterpreted fact. Call if fake if overall message is denialism.
-
Two tweets in and we're already in hot water. Here's an example. Decouple it from climate change. Let's say e.g. the Trump-Russia affair
-
There are stories across the political range on this topic. At both ends there is garbage.
-
But the point on that spectrum where you draw that line is not the same as where someone else will. And that choice is not unbiased.
-
The Q is not should NYT have editorial standards. Of course they should. And maybe they're wrong here (it's actually irrelevant if they are)
-
The Q is whether it is a good thing for platforms to overrule NYT. If yes, that's a major infringement of the press. If no, where's the line
-
It's not "overruling NYT". It's treating all media equally rather than giving NYT exemption based on historic reputation.
-
And there is absolutely nothing problematic about acting to prevent propagation of misinformation in a transparent manner.
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.