Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

natesilver.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 258 posts

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#11

Post by readthenotes1 »

jdeisenberg wrote: post #4

That’s why NPR (National Public Radio in the US) uses a disclaimer: “This is a developing story. Some things that get reported by the media will later turn out to be wrong. We will focus on reports from police officials and other authorities, credible news outlets and reporters who are at the scene. We will update as the situation develops.”

I. e., "We are a gossip rag and not to be trusted for credible journalism."

It is no better a disclaimer than the "Palestinian officials say" clause

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#12

Post by bkandel »

contrarian1234 wrote: post #7

Could be I'm misremembering the details, but I swear on the BBC they interviewed people that lived next door to the explosion as well as an official of the Anglican hospital (who to be fair was outside of Gaza). Neither called into the question the facts - but were not first hand witnesses either If everyone (ie all new agencies) screw it up then it's a systemic problem. Just blaming the New York Times or whoever is…

No one's calling into question that there was an explosion. The question is over the cause and the extent of casualties, which people who lived next door likely wouldn't be in the best position to evaluate.

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#15

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

I actually think Nate is wrong on this, especially on how he states the wrong-ness of the two parts of the story. It seems very likely to me that initial death counts were overstated. But the probability that it was an Israeli bomb that went off in the parking lot carries a lot more uncertainty and I think there's still a decent chance that it's true. There's still a lot of investigation to be done but, if when all is said and done, it turns out the bomb likely was from Israel, will Nate stick to his own standards of retraction?

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#16

Post by bendhoefs »

At this moment there is still a headline up on BBC: Hospital Blast in Gaza City Kills Hundreds - Health Officials.

In addition to the problems Nate mentions with this wording a reasonable person could think that these "health officials" are a disinterested party, rather than what they are, an appendage of the Hamas run government.

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#17

Post by woodruffw »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #11
jdeisenberg wrote: post #4

That’s why NPR (National Public Radio in the US) uses a disclaimer: “This is a developing story. Some things that get reported by the media will later turn out to be wrong. We will focus on reports from police officials and other authorities, credible news outlets and reporters who are at the scene. We will update as the situation develops.”

I. e., "We are a gossip rag and not to be trusted for credible journalism." It is no better a disclaimer than the "Palestinian officials say" clause

What is your actual counterposition here? That news outfits shouldn’t publish anything until it’s incontrovertible? This is not a practical position to hold; the NPR’s qualification seems reasonable to me in light of the situation.

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#18

Post by bluefishinit »

> The Israeli Defense Forces said that the blast was the result of a misfire from a Hamas rocket, and President Biden, citing Department of Defense evidence, has backed that claim.

These same people claimed to have seen pictures of 40 beheaded babies last week and had to immediately walk that back. The IDF also claimed not to have assassinated journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, but months later admitted to it. This is a well know IDF playbook, they are not a credible source.

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#19

Post by eli_gottlieb »

numlocked wrote: post #10

I don’t have a dog in the fight and have been a long time NYT subscriber but I concur with Nate on this one. The NYT coverage here has become even worse in the last few hours. It’s truly bizarre. Here is their latest: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/20/briefing/gaza-hospital.ht... The headline is: Gaza and the Trudeau Problem It begins with an inexplicable few paragraphs about Canada and India before taking a sharp l…

Seems remarkably similar to when they print a "debate" on taxes that consists of "We need to cut food stamps to balance the budget" on one side and "We need to raise taxes on the upper-middle class, actually" on the other. One of these has clear factual arguments behind it, but the other one is the interest of the company hosting the debate, so who's to say?

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#20

Post by swader999 »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #15

I actually think Nate is wrong on this, especially on how he states the wrong-ness of the two parts of the story. It seems very likely to me that initial death counts were overstated. But the probability that it was an Israeli bomb that went off in the parking lot carries a lot more uncertainty and I think there's still a decent chance that it's true. There's still a lot of investigation to be done but, if when all i…

An Israeli munition would have left a crater.
Post reply on HN