Find Verified Journalists on Mastodon(presscheck.org)
presscheck.org
Find Verified Journalists on Mastodon
https://www.presscheck.org/
13 comments
The issue with the publications running instances for the journalists is it means the journalists social media presence is owned by their employer which is a problem if they change jobs.
Of course for the publications, that's a feature. They (as well as analyst firms etc.) have been pushing back against their employees having personal brands since social media (including blogs) got big. Emphasizing personal brands in this setting was a big thing for a while which organizations ended up really clamping down on.
Not sure if Mastodon supports this, but the account could belong to one instance while being verified by another. This also lets folks be verified by multiple organizations - which also increases trust.
Which does sound a whole lot like how e-mail domains are treated!
Wow the comments here are very bitter. What do people have against people wanting to be verified for who they really are? For press this is important, so you know you're talking to the right person.
Was always surprised there was no independent website/source for this (Hey, my name is X, my details are at example.com/1234 if you want to find how to contact me).
Was always surprised there was no independent website/source for this (Hey, my name is X, my details are at example.com/1234 if you want to find how to contact me).
Independent objective press is important. Even press which is honest about its bias is important.
The miserable excuse for "press" which the corporate media is is important only in the sense that they are one of the main drivers behind the polarisation in society. Most of the big corporate press outlets - cable, broadcast and their internet arms - are not much more than thinly veiled propaganda outlets for the Democrats or Republicans - pity the poor soul who gets his view on the state of the world from one of these merchants of outrage.
Blue-check "journalists" who work for these outlets tend to produce narrative instead of news, aiming to stoke the fervour of their intended targets. Instead of a blue check it would be good to mark them with a red flag, 'warning: exposure has been shown to lead to distorted views of reality'.
The miserable excuse for "press" which the corporate media is is important only in the sense that they are one of the main drivers behind the polarisation in society. Most of the big corporate press outlets - cable, broadcast and their internet arms - are not much more than thinly veiled propaganda outlets for the Democrats or Republicans - pity the poor soul who gets his view on the state of the world from one of these merchants of outrage.
Blue-check "journalists" who work for these outlets tend to produce narrative instead of news, aiming to stoke the fervour of their intended targets. Instead of a blue check it would be good to mark them with a red flag, 'warning: exposure has been shown to lead to distorted views of reality'.
https://keyoxide.org supports Mastodon and other sources.
Here's the dev's profile - https://keyoxide.org/9f0048ac0b23301e1f77e994909f6bd6f80f485...
I was hoping https://keys.pub was going to win out but the dev has moved on to other projects.
Here's the dev's profile - https://keyoxide.org/9f0048ac0b23301e1f77e994909f6bd6f80f485...
I was hoping https://keys.pub was going to win out but the dev has moved on to other projects.
Because the concept of "verified" journalists implies that those "unverified" journalists outside the MSM aren't "real" journalists.
Hence an independent source would be great. I should have stated I don't believe the existing Twitter verification system is good, nor is the proposed (now active?) one. I don't know what a good solution is, apart from a directory.. which would probably be hacked..
The issue is that the unverified ones are basically the rest of the pool of Mastodon users. Let's put this to an extreme: if Mastodon were the only way to communicate, how would you trust a name over another, identical name?
> For press this is important, so you know you're talking to the right person.
That presumes their tweets are important. That's what twitter wants them to feel, the purpose of checkmarks on twitter is to make them feel important. If a journalist has something actually important to say, let them publish it and let their publisher confirm their identity. The byline on a New York Times article can be trusted, it doesn't need some dumb little check symbol next to the name.
The tweets of somebody with articles in the New York Times are not important. When a journalist tweets, they bypass the mechanisms and customs which would normally make what a journalist says important, namely their editors. The apparent importance that tweeting has is an illusory sensation cynically engineered by twitter, to the detriment of society.
That presumes their tweets are important. That's what twitter wants them to feel, the purpose of checkmarks on twitter is to make them feel important. If a journalist has something actually important to say, let them publish it and let their publisher confirm their identity. The byline on a New York Times article can be trusted, it doesn't need some dumb little check symbol next to the name.
The tweets of somebody with articles in the New York Times are not important. When a journalist tweets, they bypass the mechanisms and customs which would normally make what a journalist says important, namely their editors. The apparent importance that tweeting has is an illusory sensation cynically engineered by twitter, to the detriment of society.
I never understood “verified” tags for press. It allowed then to impersonate real experts. They should have just had a press tag
“Verified” was never meant to mean “blindly trust this person”, it was meant to mean “this is the (notable/famous) person it says it is, not an impersonator”.
Some people put too much weight on it, and I partly blame Twitter for making it a status game (e.g. using verified status to influence ranking algorithms) and for kneecapping the security feature by allowing display name changes without further verification.
Some people put too much weight on it, and I partly blame Twitter for making it a status game (e.g. using verified status to influence ranking algorithms) and for kneecapping the security feature by allowing display name changes without further verification.
Rightly or wrongly, Twitter decided that there were certain classes of people--the mainstream famous, big media journalists, politicians--for whom it was important to know if tweets were really from that person or not. Not even past impersonation attempts were taken into account. However, as you say, it became a status thing with even people well-known in various communities with thousands of followers being algorithmically denied checks and taking it as a personal slight.
I just didn’t think having verified for press made much sense. Their opinions were/are as well informed as that of an average joe blue blow. A press tag wold have helped inform that they were also likely to be poorly informed.
Indeed, you seem to have misunderstood the whole point. If "verified" was supposed to mean "expert", then they would have called it the "expert" tag. Instead "verified" means (meant) "verified" -- Twitter checked the poster out and will vouch that the human being behind the account is who they say they are.
That this then led to scarcity and a weird status stratification is unfortunate. But literally no one at Twitter or elsewhere ever tried to say these checkmarks denoted "expertise", so I don't know where you got that.
That this then led to scarcity and a weird status stratification is unfortunate. But literally no one at Twitter or elsewhere ever tried to say these checkmarks denoted "expertise", so I don't know where you got that.
It was annoying having to figure out why a person was verified. Especially if it turned out that the only reason was that they had a press pass.
If you read the guidelines it was pretty clearly spelled out. With respect to journalists, from what I can tell "big media" like the networks, New York Times, major magazines, etc. were pretty automatic but things got sort of random once you go to small publications, contributors, freelancers, and so forth--especially those without a huge twitter fan base.
Who cares, though? I truly don’t understand this obsession with the blue checkmarks, and so far no one has actually explained it to me. Elon said he was getting rid of the “lords and peasants system” by allowing anyone to buy a blue check. Why does having one make you a “lord”? Why should I feel like a “peasant” for not having one? It doesn’t make sense to me.
I would have like to see that verified means their bio in the profile is correct. As to why it matters, well sometimes you have to trust an expert, Time isn’t infinite and you can’t research every/many topics in enough detail to have a good critical understanding.
But it never purported to indicate expertise. The given rationale was "is this person who they say they are".
OK, you're just talking about the stratification then. That's really a very different argument.
It's true that some people would want to be "verified" and couldn't be because they didn't meet whatever internal notability guidelines Twitter implemented. And it's likewise true that traditional news organizations had a shortcut to get anyone with a byline verified. And maybe that's unfair.
But it has absolutely nothing to do with "expert". Verification was verification of identity. They told you that in the text that popped up when you clicked on the checkmark!
It's true that some people would want to be "verified" and couldn't be because they didn't meet whatever internal notability guidelines Twitter implemented. And it's likewise true that traditional news organizations had a shortcut to get anyone with a byline verified. And maybe that's unfair.
But it has absolutely nothing to do with "expert". Verification was verification of identity. They told you that in the text that popped up when you clicked on the checkmark!
That's exactly it. Big media, for some definition of same, mostly got a pass--as did (I think) politicians. Pretty much everything else was at the whims of Twitter's algorithms which were presumably based on some sort of obscure notability score.
God, what would I do without my status quo parrots?
Has any of these "journalists" have ever done any journalism, like investigating political officials, exposing corruption scandals, even if at a local level, you don't need a global story.
Has any of these "journalists" have ever done any journalism, like investigating political officials, exposing corruption scandals, even if at a local level, you don't need a global story.
Seems like this is run by one well-meaning person on off hours. I wonder if this sort of multi-domain "verification" be automated similar to ACME protocol. Let's say you are a bonafide reporter at the Daily Globe (or any social media entity with any org). The reporter goes to presscheck, makes an assertion, receives a token, places the token in a known location on Daily Globe's website, presscheck watches for token and once it is present issues "verification" to reporter. Maybe Daily Globe has to keep the token in place for the verification to stick or maybe there is a re-verification at a certain interval.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Certificate_Manageme...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Certificate_Manageme...
Who is eligible?
Any journalist globally, including freelancers, newsletter writers... any category, really. This site is about confirming someone is who they say they are, not defining what a "journalist" is.
How are profiles verified?
Applications are to be made here. The quickest way to get verified is by tweeting a link to your Mastodon profile on an already-verified Twitter account. Failing that, providing a company email address for us to follow up with is another great method. Freelancers and newsletter writers should include as much background information and linked worked as possible in their application.Keyoxide and similar are a great way to establish and verify identity across a variety of platforms, and are open to more than just journalists.
https://keyoxide.org/
https://keyoxide.org/
I made a similar thing for finding people to follow but covering all different kinds of interests and topics: https://getstarted.social/
Interesting, thanks for sharing it!
I clicked randomly on one of the "latest additions" (https://www.presscheck.org/journalists/lauren-wolfe) and ...
Well, the linked mastodon profile (https://mastodon.world/LaurenWolfe) doesn't even exist.
Well, the linked mastodon profile (https://mastodon.world/LaurenWolfe) doesn't even exist.
They are missing the @ symbol.
https://mastodon.world/@LaurenWolfe
https://mastodon.world/@LaurenWolfe
that would make a great blacklist
Yes, that is a good point. For instance, if you saw a Twitter FOX news verified account, you could safely assume it's not satire and block that account.
(If you want to protect your bubble.)
(If you want to protect your bubble.)
Why would I care or want to?
This seems pathetic, like a bunch of twitter addicted journalists who've walked away from twitter but can't give up their addiction to being special on twitter.
The twitter check was never a mark of credibility. Most of Fox News had twitter checks.
The twitter check was never a mark of credibility. Most of Fox News had twitter checks.
The twitter check was never a mark of credibility.
I mean, you are right, it never was a mark of credibility. But no one really claimed it ever was, so it's confusing that you are using it as an accusation.
I mean, you are right, it never was a mark of credibility. But no one really claimed it ever was, so it's confusing that you are using it as an accusation.
The checkmark was, and was always supposed to be, a mark of identity. And we know it was needed because the instant they rolled it back a flood of fake "verified" accounts rushed in to demonstrate the need (c.f. what happened to LLY stock).
And it's useful to put it on journalists for the same reason. The fact that you personally dislike these people doesn't speak to the need for those of us who don't to know who we're reading.
And it's useful to put it on journalists for the same reason. The fact that you personally dislike these people doesn't speak to the need for those of us who don't to know who we're reading.
The twitter check was, and was always supposed to be, a way to make people with the check feel special. Where the real journalism is done, their identity is confirmed by their publishers with bylines, not checkmarks. Confirming identity is not the purpose of checks; this is demonstrated by the fact that checkmark revocation is used as a punishment for breaking twitter rules, not when identity comes into question.
Social media isn't a newspaper, it's a skinner box. We'd all be better off if they all walked away from their tweeting addictions for real, instead of moving to a synthetic analogue to replace their clout addiction. Mastodon is methadone.
Social media isn't a newspaper, it's a skinner box. We'd all be better off if they all walked away from their tweeting addictions for real, instead of moving to a synthetic analogue to replace their clout addiction. Mastodon is methadone.
> The twitter check was, and was always supposed to be, a way to make people with the check feel special.
No, stop it. That kind of hyperbole isn't helping the discussion. It's very clear what the intent was behind verification. It's clear from the name itself; Twitter was quite clear about it at the time. And as pointed out, it's abundantly clear that it was serving exactly that need well, as the second it was modified people started getting fooled into selling the wrong drug stock!
I'm sorry you're upset at Twitter, but it doesn't help things by lying about their products.
No, stop it. That kind of hyperbole isn't helping the discussion. It's very clear what the intent was behind verification. It's clear from the name itself; Twitter was quite clear about it at the time. And as pointed out, it's abundantly clear that it was serving exactly that need well, as the second it was modified people started getting fooled into selling the wrong drug stock!
I'm sorry you're upset at Twitter, but it doesn't help things by lying about their products.
The stated intent was what you say. The way it was practiced, they have a point. There were many cases of people being denied verification who could have badly needed it. Personally I noticed that about people affiliated with Wikileaks, many who I know asked for it and got rejections without explanation.
Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka, Louis Farrakhan and Milo Yiannopolous are examples of people who lost their checkmarks not because Twitter started to doubt they were themselves, but because they were so loathed.
Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka, Louis Farrakhan and Milo Yiannopolous are examples of people who lost their checkmarks not because Twitter started to doubt they were themselves, but because they were so loathed.
It was verification if you were important enough (based on whatever metrics) to be awarded verification. Therefore it's not surprising that some people explicitly denied verification after submitting documentation would take offense.
So what though? It's not a feature for them, it is (was) a feature for us, so we know who we're reading. The proper list of people who "need" verification are those who would otherwise be targets of impersonation. That's always going to be a subjective decision, and the poster herself is probably the worst possible judge of notability!
In my direct experience, having a few thousand followers can be plenty to get impersonated even though that doesn't in general pass Twitter notability filters--even when that impersonation had already happened (and the impersonator banned). So it was not a very good system. In fact, I have trouble coming up with good reasons--outside of cost--why someone shouldn't be able to get verified if they want/feel the need to be.
Julian Assange not only was denied a checkmark, Twitter refused to remove the account impersonating him.
The moment Assange lost access to his Twitter account though, and his friends (who had access to it, for just such an event) wanted to use it to call attention to his plight and campaign for its release, it was quickly suspended on the excuse that it wasn't him personally.
The moment Assange lost access to his Twitter account though, and his friends (who had access to it, for just such an event) wanted to use it to call attention to his plight and campaign for its release, it was quickly suspended on the excuse that it wasn't him personally.
> It's very clear what the intent was behind verification
The use of checkmark revocation as a punishment proves that the intent of checkmarks was to reward people with a sensation of being special, not to verify their identity.
> lying
You think I'm wrong, therefore I'm lying? Lying is about intent. I think you're wrong but I don't think you're lying. I just think you're foolish.
The use of checkmark revocation as a punishment proves that the intent of checkmarks was to reward people with a sensation of being special, not to verify their identity.
> lying
You think I'm wrong, therefore I'm lying? Lying is about intent. I think you're wrong but I don't think you're lying. I just think you're foolish.
You know that it is super normal for journalists to pitch their ideas to various journals? In fact, journalist remain the same journalist when moving from one job to another or when being between jobs. Or when moving for substack.
There is also zero reason to limit the term "journalist" to big institutions.
There is also zero reason to limit the term "journalist" to big institutions.
> There is also zero reason to limit the term "journalist" to big institutions.
The "presscheck.org" verification asks freelance journalists looking for mastadon checkmark to submit links to their published work. Having your work published is what actually matters.
> big institution
The bylines of articles in a small-town newspapers can be trusted. They don't need checks next to their names when their articles are published by small newspapers. The checks are only "important" on social media, because social media is trash engineered to make people feel special.
The "presscheck.org" verification asks freelance journalists looking for mastadon checkmark to submit links to their published work. Having your work published is what actually matters.
> big institution
The bylines of articles in a small-town newspapers can be trusted. They don't need checks next to their names when their articles are published by small newspapers. The checks are only "important" on social media, because social media is trash engineered to make people feel special.
FREE INSULIN FOR ALL
That's a good example of the way the sensation of importance manufactured by social media is to the detriment of society. If a company has something market-moving to say, let them go to newspapers. When traders are reading social media instead of newspapers, society has a serious problem.
Fox are corporate, pharma-funded and biased, but looking objectively at the last 6-10 years they've proven more credible than the legacy networks, let alone their cable peers.
If you really think Fox are credible, then swap MSNBC into my comment instead, the point stands. Or Graham Hancock and the ancient aliens sphere of influencers. Or Ben Shapiro or Richard Spencer. No matter which way you slice it, the twitter check has never been a mark of credibility.
Agreed on that point. I just thought it was a good time to point out that the popular opinion about their relative credibility is outdated.
Look at the big stories of the last 6-10 years. How many did Chuck Todd or NPR get totally wrong?
And this is the important part: They got a lot wrong by simply not asking obvious questions, let alone any that would require the skepticism or curiosity that used to be requisite to the profession.
Look at the big stories of the last 6-10 years. How many did Chuck Todd or NPR get totally wrong?
And this is the important part: They got a lot wrong by simply not asking obvious questions, let alone any that would require the skepticism or curiosity that used to be requisite to the profession.
Who cares? Is an SVG on their profile the only thing that makes them happy in life?
Even if you find them it'll be a chore to follow them and see interact if not on your server.
Why?
On android at least it's not easy to find people on other servers other than if someone you follow reblogs them.
Even then you might need to "open in browser" copy their link and paste it in to follow.
Done all that? Great the app won't pull their recent toots. So that was useless wasn't it?
Even then you might need to "open in browser" copy their link and paste it in to follow.
Done all that? Great the app won't pull their recent toots. So that was useless wasn't it?
Twitter refugees are so accustomed to the Twitter website being godawful that it apparently has gone unnoticed that the Mastodon web interface is excellent, even on mobile. Who needs apps?
Yea, the users are wrong. Mastodon is perfect.
It's been five years since I quit Twitter, and after using Mastodon for a week I'm of the opinion that, yes, the UI is much superior (Twitter's UI has even somehow gotten worse since then). People don't use Twitter because of its terrible UI, they use it despite it.
I know that there's a kind of verification mechanism already in Mastodon where you put a backlink in your website and then you get a badge. But it is an order of magnitude more complicated than "this server vouches for the identity of this account," and website ownership isn't really identity anyway.