I have seen zero evidence that independent archives “keep news media honest”. In fact, I have on several occasions noticed news media directly contradicting their own stance from just a few years prior, with no mention of the previously published account at all. This is true even for highly respected newspapers of record.
I can indeed find clear records of that in the archives. But what do I do with them? How do I use that evidence to hold news media to account? This is meaningless moral posturing.
Contact the journalist of the new article with the contradicting article? Letters to the editor? Submit an opinion article?
I've contacted multiple journalists over the years about errors in their articles and I've generally found them responsive and thankful.
Sometimes it's not even their fault. One time a journalist told me the incorrect information was unknowingly added by an editor.
I get that it's popular on HN and the internet to bash news media, and that there are a lot of legitimate issues with the media, but my personal experience is that journalists do actually want to do a good job and respond accordingly when you engage them (in a non-antagonistic manner).
The incidents I’m referring to aren’t “errors” though.
If a major article claims that certain groups don’t exist, while the same newspaper published a detailed report about those exact groups and how dangerous they are just two years earlier, it’s not because the journalist wasn’t able to do a 10-second Google search where their own paper’s article would have been among the top results.
> But what do I do with them? How do I use that evidence to hold news media to account?
Contact their rivals with the story, have them write a hit piece. "Other newspaper is telling porkies: here's the proof!" is an excellent story: not one I'd expect a journalist to have time to discover, but certainly one I'd expect them to be able to follow up on, once they've received a tip.
That’s not how publishing works. News outlets (especially those of roughly similar political leaning) very rarely call out each other’s misconduct. In fact, they often seem to operate as a quasi-conglomerate rather than competitors.
If they're not doing real journalism, why are you paying any attention to them? There are hundreds of small journalism groups who will call each other out just as easily as collaborate, who care primarily for truth and secondarily for putting food on the table (and therefore rarely have anything to call out). Many of their journalists have quit (or been fired from) the big news organisations, or would have been snapped up 50 years ago but are presently unhireable.
For the record, I'm talking about actual journalism groups, not Substack blogs. Here's one (largely US-centric) list, a ≈dozen links long: https://hcommons.social/@zeblarson/115488066909889058. You almost certainly have local journalists who need your support, which obviously I cannot list here.
I can indeed find clear records of that in the archives. But what do I do with them? How do I use that evidence to hold news media to account? This is meaningless moral posturing.