New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism
1–10 of 277 posts
Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism
#2That was the same article?! I was just reading that and though it was some kind of editorial followup.
That NewsDiff link seems like a case for Margaret Sullivan. I can already picture the appeasement article in my head.
Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism
#3Publishers who wish to rein in the excesses of editors and journalists who abuse updates could establish a policy of linking to a change history which shows all the iterations of a specific article.
The temptation to make questionable edits would be curbed because evidence would be immediately available, enabling punishing critiques.
Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism
#4I was hoping someone would write about how bad this article was. (Shocked to see it's the same one as the pretty good piece from earlier.)
The worst part to me was the article quoting Mitch Kapor to back up its implicit support of internet censorship:
>...charges that bullying, harassment and cruel behavior are out of control on the web...
>Mitch Kapor, a co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, noted that Reddit users were predominantly male and 18 to 29 years old.
>“In my view, her job was made more difficult because as a woman, she was particularly subject to the abuse stemming from the pockets of toxic misogyny in the Reddit ecosystem,” said Mr. Kapor, now a partner at Kapor Capital.
Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism
#5News are corrupted as fuck, internet makes this worse. Rewrites, frequency, amount, lies, anything goes if you can get +1 view
Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism
#6As someone who frequently rewrites, revises, and deletes their online comments, to me the article's changes just look like part of the writing process in a world of realtime publishing. The New York Times did not have a front page story ready within minutes of the news breaking, and unlike CNN, they didn't publish random tweets about the event as news: there's better and worse.
Maybe newspapers need git repositories...with no ability to rebase of course.
Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism
#7No matter what the subject matter this does seem like a questionable practice.
Why not make a new article if it is that different? Is there a URL shortage at NYT?
Or was it a case of one commit, another commit and yet another commit and then you have a whole new article?
Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism
#8I was hoping someone would write about how bad this article was. (Shocked to see it's the same one as the pretty good piece from earlier.) The worst part to me was the article quoting Mitch Kapor to back up its implicit support of internet censorship: >...charges that bullying, harassment and cruel behavior are out of control on the web... >Mitch Kapor, a co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, noted that R…
It is not censorship to say that a private entity has the right to choose who gets kicked out of their dinner party.
I keep hoping that somebody will write about the difference between censorship and private parties choosing not to support and/or tolerate certain behaviors. It shouldn't be necessary, but there's a generation of people so incredibly entitled and so incredibly insane that they actually need a primer on reality.
Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism
#9Probably should have just been a second article, though I could understand why they might not want two very similar articles covering a lot of the same ground. I assume only the latter version ran in print. The first version should probably have just stuck around as a web-only piece that links to the newer one. Be interesting to see what the Ombudsman has to say.
Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism
#10It looks to me like they published the original article as breaking news, then changed it to be similar to what is going to, or was printed, in the physical edition of the newspaper.
I would strongly prefer the two articles be posted in their entirety at different (permanent) URIs, but I'm guessing this has already been debated and decided at the Times in favor of what they did.