Strukturering · Why are corrections never as loud as the claim?

SPØRSMÅLET

Why are corrections never as loud as the claim?

Påvirker det ene det andre i betydelig grad? Tre firedeler av de avgitte stemmene avgjør.

Du ser på som gjest. Skriv inn et brukernavn for å bli med og delta.

Spørsmålene fordeles mellom gruppene, så du får dem gruppen din ble tildelt — ikke alle 180.

hvorfor

Ingen kunne svart på flere hundre par. Hvert par går til én gruppe; et par som deler gruppen, sendes så videre til andre grupper, så det kan dukke opp i listen din senere selv om det startet et annet sted. Antallet avgjorte omfatter alle gruppenes arbeid, og derfor stiger det raskere enn din egen liste krymper.

avgjort: 176 / 180 til deg å svare på: 0

Siste opptelling: avgjort 176 · sendt videre til paneler på tvers av grupper 2 · omstridt 0 · under kvorum 2 — paneler trenger minst max(2, 75% av panelet) avgitte stemmer; ditt minste panel har 15 medlemmer.

lukk ✕

We label the claim and cannot label the confidence → påvirker? → The metric is claims processed

Ingenting sagt ennå.

Fullført fase — protokollen over par og stemmer står ovenfor.Sjekk logikken ↗

Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the claim	→	Being first is rewarded and being right is assumed	åpent sendt videre	diskuter
The metric is claims processed	→	Editors ask whether anyone else has run it	åpent sendt videre	diskuter
Our funding is project-based and follows whatever is topical	→	A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field	åpent	diskuter
The metric is claims processed	→	We label the claim and cannot label the confidence	åpent	diskuter
There is no news hook for 'the advice changed and nobody said'	→	We cover the row about the change, never the change	✓ ja	diskuter
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	→	A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	✓ ja	diskuter
We cover the row about the change, never the change	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	✓ ja	diskuter
Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	✓ ja	diskuter
The quiet revision is not an event, so it is not news	→	There is no news hook for 'the advice changed and nobody said'	✓ ja	diskuter
Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the claim	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	✓ ja	diskuter
Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the claim	→	A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	✓ ja	diskuter
Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	✓ ja	diskuter
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	→	The quiet revision is not an event, so it is not news	✓ ja	diskuter
Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	→	Our funding is project-based and follows whatever is topical	✓ ja	diskuter
The metric is claims processed	→	Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	✓ ja	diskuter
We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them	→	Nobody is checking the structure that produced the claim	✓ ja	diskuter
Editors ask whether anyone else has run it	→	By the time we could confirm it, it was old	✓ ja	diskuter
We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them	→	We label the claim and cannot label the confidence	✓ ja	diskuter
Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	→	The metric is claims processed	✓ ja	diskuter
By the time we could confirm it, it was old	→	Nobody is checking the structure that produced the claim	✓ ja	diskuter
A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field	→	We label the claim and cannot label the confidence	✓ ja	diskuter
We label the claim and cannot label the confidence	→	Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	✓ ja	diskuter
A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field	→	By the time we could confirm it, it was old	✓ ja	diskuter
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	→	There is no news hook for 'the advice changed and nobody said'	✓ utledet	diskuter
Editors ask whether anyone else has run it	→	Nobody is checking the structure that produced the claim	✓ utledet	diskuter
We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them	→	The metric is claims processed	✓ utledet	diskuter
We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them	→	Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	✓ utledet	diskuter
Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric	→	Being first is rewarded and being right is assumed	✗ nei	diskuter
There is no news hook for 'the advice changed and nobody said'	→	A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	✗ nei	diskuter
We cover the row about the change, never the change	→	The quiet revision is not an event, so it is not news	✗ nei	diskuter
We cover the row about the change, never the change	→	Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour	✗ nei	diskuter
Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the claim	→	The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	✗ nei	diskuter
We cover the row about the change, never the change	→	There is no news hook for 'the advice changed and nobody said'	✗ nei	diskuter
The quiet revision is not an event, so it is not news	→	The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	✗ nei	diskuter
A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	→	Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric	✗ nei	diskuter
The quiet revision is not an event, so it is not news	→	Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour	✗ nei	diskuter
There is no news hook for 'the advice changed and nobody said'	→	The quiet revision is not an event, so it is not news	✗ nei	diskuter
Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the claim	→	There is no news hook for 'the advice changed and nobody said'	✗ nei	diskuter
Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric	→	A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	✗ nei	diskuter
Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric	→	The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	✗ nei	diskuter
Being first is rewarded and being right is assumed	→	Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the claim	✗ nei	diskuter
There is no news hook for 'the advice changed and nobody said'	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	✗ nei	diskuter
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	→	Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the claim	✗ nei	diskuter
A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	→	Being first is rewarded and being right is assumed	✗ nei	diskuter
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	→	There is no news hook for 'the advice changed and nobody said'	✗ nei	diskuter
Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the claim	→	Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour	✗ nei	diskuter
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	→	Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour	✗ nei	diskuter
Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric	→	Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour	✗ nei	diskuter
Being first is rewarded and being right is assumed	→	A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	✗ nei	diskuter
There is no news hook for 'the advice changed and nobody said'	→	Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the claim	✗ nei	diskuter
Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric	→	Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the claim	✗ nei	diskuter
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	→	The quiet revision is not an event, so it is not news	✗ nei	diskuter
Being first is rewarded and being right is assumed	→	The quiet revision is not an event, so it is not news	✗ nei	diskuter
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	→	Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the claim	✗ nei	diskuter
A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	→	There is no news hook for 'the advice changed and nobody said'	✗ nei	diskuter
A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	✗ nei	diskuter
Being first is rewarded and being right is assumed	→	There is no news hook for 'the advice changed and nobody said'	✗ nei	diskuter
Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the claim	→	The quiet revision is not an event, so it is not news	✗ nei	diskuter
Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour	→	The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	✗ nei	diskuter
A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	→	Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour	✗ nei	diskuter
Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour	→	There is no news hook for 'the advice changed and nobody said'	✗ nei	diskuter
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	→	Being first is rewarded and being right is assumed	✗ nei	diskuter
Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric	→	We cover the row about the change, never the change	✗ nei	diskuter
Being first is rewarded and being right is assumed	→	Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric	✗ nei	diskuter
The quiet revision is not an event, so it is not news	→	Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the claim	✗ nei	diskuter
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	→	Being first is rewarded and being right is assumed	✗ nei	diskuter
There is no news hook for 'the advice changed and nobody said'	→	The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	✗ nei	diskuter
Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour	→	Being first is rewarded and being right is assumed	✗ nei	diskuter
Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour	→	Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the claim	✗ nei	diskuter
Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric	→	There is no news hook for 'the advice changed and nobody said'	✗ nei	diskuter
We cover the row about the change, never the change	→	The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	✗ nei	diskuter
The quiet revision is not an event, so it is not news	→	Being first is rewarded and being right is assumed	✗ nei	diskuter
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	→	We cover the row about the change, never the change	✗ nei	diskuter
Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the claim	→	We cover the row about the change, never the change	✗ nei	diskuter
Being first is rewarded and being right is assumed	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	✗ nei	diskuter
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	→	The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	✗ nei	diskuter
Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour	→	A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	✗ nei	diskuter
Being first is rewarded and being right is assumed	→	Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour	✗ nei	diskuter
Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour	→	Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric	✗ nei	diskuter
Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour	→	The quiet revision is not an event, so it is not news	✗ nei	diskuter
The quiet revision is not an event, so it is not news	→	We cover the row about the change, never the change	✗ nei	diskuter
Being first is rewarded and being right is assumed	→	We cover the row about the change, never the change	✗ nei	diskuter
There is no news hook for 'the advice changed and nobody said'	→	Being first is rewarded and being right is assumed	✗ nei	diskuter
Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the claim	→	Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric	✗ nei	diskuter
The quiet revision is not an event, so it is not news	→	A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	✗ nei	diskuter
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	✗ nei	diskuter
A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	→	The quiet revision is not an event, so it is not news	✗ nei	diskuter
There is no news hook for 'the advice changed and nobody said'	→	Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric	✗ nei	diskuter
We cover the row about the change, never the change	→	Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric	✗ nei	diskuter
The quiet revision is not an event, so it is not news	→	Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric	✗ nei	diskuter
We cover the row about the change, never the change	→	A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	✗ nei	diskuter
We cover the row about the change, never the change	→	Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the claim	✗ nei	diskuter
We cover the row about the change, never the change	→	Being first is rewarded and being right is assumed	✗ nei	diskuter
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	→	Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric	✗ nei	diskuter
A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	→	We cover the row about the change, never the change	✗ nei	diskuter
Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric	→	The quiet revision is not an event, so it is not news	✗ nei	diskuter
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	→	A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	✗ nei	diskuter
Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour	→	We cover the row about the change, never the change	✗ nei	diskuter
A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	→	Nobody measures whether our corrections reach the people who saw the claim	✗ nei	diskuter
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	→	We cover the row about the change, never the change	✗ nei	diskuter
The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	→	Checking the powerful is slower per claim, so it loses on the metric	✗ nei	diskuter
Being first is rewarded and being right is assumed	→	The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	✗ nei	diskuter
The quiet revision is not an event, so it is not news	→	Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	✗ nei	diskuter
Being wrong in public costs an institution more than being slow	→	Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour	✗ nei	diskuter
There is no news hook for 'the advice changed and nobody said'	→	Checking an institution takes weeks and checking a tweet takes an hour	✗ nei	diskuter
A correction arrives long after the decision it should have changed	→	The bodies that issue guidance also fund those who check it	✗ nei	diskuter
Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	→	We say we are independent and the audience is right to ask how	✗ nei	diskuter
Nobody is checking the structure that produced the claim	→	A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field	✗ nei	diskuter
We label the claim and cannot label the confidence	→	A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field	✗ nei	diskuter
Editors ask whether anyone else has run it	→	Our funding is project-based and follows whatever is topical	✗ nei	diskuter
A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field	→	We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them	✗ nei	diskuter
We label the claim and cannot label the confidence	→	Our funding is project-based and follows whatever is topical	✗ nei	diskuter
Nobody is checking the structure that produced the claim	→	The metric is claims processed	✗ nei	diskuter
Editors ask whether anyone else has run it	→	We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them	✗ nei	diskuter
Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	→	Nobody is checking the structure that produced the claim	✗ nei	diskuter
Nobody is checking the structure that produced the claim	→	By the time we could confirm it, it was old	✗ nei	diskuter
We label the claim and cannot label the confidence	→	The metric is claims processed	✗ nei	i fokus ↑ · lukk ✕
The metric is claims processed	→	A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field	✗ nei	diskuter
The metric is claims processed	→	We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them	✗ nei	diskuter
A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field	→	Our funding is project-based and follows whatever is topical	✗ nei	diskuter
Nobody is checking the structure that produced the claim	→	Our funding is project-based and follows whatever is topical	✗ nei	diskuter
A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field	→	Nobody is checking the structure that produced the claim	✗ nei	diskuter
By the time we could confirm it, it was old	→	A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field	✗ nei	diskuter
We say we are independent and the audience is right to ask how	→	The metric is claims processed	✗ nei	diskuter
Nobody is checking the structure that produced the claim	→	We label the claim and cannot label the confidence	✗ nei	diskuter
A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field	→	We say we are independent and the audience is right to ask how	✗ nei	diskuter
Editors ask whether anyone else has run it	→	A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field	✗ nei	diskuter
By the time we could confirm it, it was old	→	We say we are independent and the audience is right to ask how	✗ nei	diskuter
We label the claim and cannot label the confidence	→	We say we are independent and the audience is right to ask how	✗ nei	diskuter
By the time we could confirm it, it was old	→	Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	✗ nei	diskuter
By the time we could confirm it, it was old	→	Our funding is project-based and follows whatever is topical	✗ nei	diskuter
We say we are independent and the audience is right to ask how	→	A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field	✗ nei	diskuter
Editors ask whether anyone else has run it	→	Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	✗ nei	diskuter
Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	→	We label the claim and cannot label the confidence	✗ nei	diskuter
Our funding is project-based and follows whatever is topical	→	We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them	✗ nei	diskuter
We label the claim and cannot label the confidence	→	We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them	✗ nei	diskuter
The metric is claims processed	→	Our funding is project-based and follows whatever is topical	✗ nei	diskuter
By the time we could confirm it, it was old	→	We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them	✗ nei	diskuter
The metric is claims processed	→	Nobody is checking the structure that produced the claim	✗ nei	diskuter
Our funding is project-based and follows whatever is topical	→	We say we are independent and the audience is right to ask how	✗ nei	diskuter
We label the claim and cannot label the confidence	→	Editors ask whether anyone else has run it	✗ nei	diskuter
By the time we could confirm it, it was old	→	Editors ask whether anyone else has run it	✗ nei	diskuter
We say we are independent and the audience is right to ask how	→	Editors ask whether anyone else has run it	✗ nei	diskuter
Editors ask whether anyone else has run it	→	The metric is claims processed	✗ nei	diskuter
Editors ask whether anyone else has run it	→	We label the claim and cannot label the confidence	✗ nei	diskuter
We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them	→	Editors ask whether anyone else has run it	✗ nei	diskuter
Our funding is project-based and follows whatever is topical	→	By the time we could confirm it, it was old	✗ nei	diskuter
Editors ask whether anyone else has run it	→	We say we are independent and the audience is right to ask how	✗ nei	diskuter
A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field	→	The metric is claims processed	✗ nei	diskuter
Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	→	By the time we could confirm it, it was old	✗ nei	diskuter
Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	→	We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them	✗ nei	diskuter
By the time we could confirm it, it was old	→	The metric is claims processed	✗ nei	diskuter
Our funding is project-based and follows whatever is topical	→	Editors ask whether anyone else has run it	✗ nei	diskuter
Nobody is checking the structure that produced the claim	→	We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them	✗ nei	diskuter
We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them	→	A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field	✗ nei	diskuter
We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them	→	Our funding is project-based and follows whatever is topical	✗ nei	diskuter
We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them	→	We say we are independent and the audience is right to ask how	✗ nei	diskuter
We say we are independent and the audience is right to ask how	→	We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them	✗ nei	diskuter
Our funding is project-based and follows whatever is topical	→	The metric is claims processed	✗ nei	diskuter
Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	→	Editors ask whether anyone else has run it	✗ nei	diskuter
We label the claim and cannot label the confidence	→	By the time we could confirm it, it was old	✗ nei	diskuter
Our funding is project-based and follows whatever is topical	→	Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	✗ nei	diskuter
Nobody is checking the structure that produced the claim	→	Editors ask whether anyone else has run it	✗ nei	diskuter
Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	→	A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field	✗ nei	diskuter
The metric is claims processed	→	By the time we could confirm it, it was old	✗ nei	diskuter
We say we are independent and the audience is right to ask how	→	By the time we could confirm it, it was old	✗ nei	diskuter
By the time we could confirm it, it was old	→	We label the claim and cannot label the confidence	✗ nei	diskuter
Nobody is checking the structure that produced the claim	→	We say we are independent and the audience is right to ask how	✗ nei	diskuter
Our funding is project-based and follows whatever is topical	→	We label the claim and cannot label the confidence	✗ nei	diskuter
We are asked to check claims, not the guidance that generated them	→	By the time we could confirm it, it was old	✗ nei	diskuter
We say we are independent and the audience is right to ask how	→	Our funding is project-based and follows whatever is topical	✗ nei	diskuter
Our funding is project-based and follows whatever is topical	→	Nobody is checking the structure that produced the claim	✗ nei	diskuter
The metric is claims processed	→	We say we are independent and the audience is right to ask how	✗ nei	diskuter
Nobody is checking the structure that produced the claim	→	Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	✗ nei	diskuter
We say we are independent and the audience is right to ask how	→	We label the claim and cannot label the confidence	✗ nei	diskuter
We label the claim and cannot label the confidence	→	Nobody is checking the structure that produced the claim	✗ nei	diskuter
We say we are independent and the audience is right to ask how	→	Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	✗ nei	diskuter
A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field	→	Guidance was stated more confidently than the evidence supported	✗ nei	diskuter
A newsroom cannot hold a specialist for every field	→	Editors ask whether anyone else has run it	✗ nei	diskuter
We say we are independent and the audience is right to ask how	→	Nobody is checking the structure that produced the claim	✗ nei	diskuter