Why you can't trust journalism | Fusion

"If a scientific paper's findings are surprising, there's a very, very good chance that it's wrong: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... the solution is to check, to revisit, to reanalyze. And then there's journalism, where reporters come out with shocking and surprising stories every day, and no one ever gets to reanalyze the underlying reporting... Journalism would be greatly improved were it to learn a lesson from empirical science, which is that even the best and most assiduous work can turn out on examination to be deeply flawed... Whenever there's only one story on any given subject, then relying on that one story is always going to be dangerous. And yet, the way the journalism world works, once there's one big compelling story, no one else tends to ever go near that area again... What I'd love to see would be a nonprofit journalism outfit which did nothing but re-report any big or interesting scoops."