Look, you’re derailing quite a bit, away from the central question here which is pretty simple. My entire thesis: “the goal of basic fact checking is infinitely more responsible than none”
I guess. You brought up the New York Times and I felt your claims about it deserved to be questioned (precisely the sort of thing you’re arguing for) and, frankly, the jury is still out about how well fact-checked the New York Times really is.
That said, I have no problem with your stance that Medium should do a better job, or your decision to not contribute to Medium until it does. I hope the financial pressure you’re putting on them makes a difference.
So if you want to go write your own Medium post about those dozens, feel free. Because the problems of traditional media are an entirely different set of complex problems. Whereas I think we can all agree that a bunch of San Francisco millennials who have tech or literature backgrounds are clearly not engaging in basic fact checking before they recommend stories that so obviously support their personal political biases, thus when they launch a subscription platform boasting of “depth, truth-seeking, and understanding” that’s a problem that ought to be called out.
I’m not really interested in categorically bashing San Francisco Millennials. I also have no clue what apparatus lies beneath what shows up on Medium’s Editors’ Picks or staff recommendations.
It would be interesting to know what fraction of the stories recommended by the Medium staff have egregious counterfactual claims. One of them stood out as very glaring to you, but it’s possible the entire body of picks isn’t any worse, word for word or article for article, than the Washington Post or New York Times.