New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism • Hacker News Board

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#31

Post by _red » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 5:19 PM UTC

jpmattia wrote: post #24

clamprecht wrote: post #15

I think a lesson everyone should have in life is witnessing something first-hand in real life, and then reading about it in the media, and seeing how incredibly inaccurate media articles are. Anytime I read an article about a subject I actually have first-hand knowledge of, it reaffirms the lesson.

> I think a lesson everyone should have in life is witnessing something first-hand in real life, and then reading about it in the media, Even better: Saying something to a reporter, and then reading what you supposedly said within quotation marks. (Although perhaps my data is old and things have gotten better since adequate interview-recording equipment is now on every smartphone.)

Yes, trying to give any sort of nuanced answer to a reporter is almost hopeless.

For instance if you say: "Plan ABC is good, however the specific concerns are X, Y, and Z. If care is not taken in how these issued are addressed it will likely be a very expensive failure".

The article will appear as: PLAN HAS BROAD SUPPORT. _red says, "Plan ABC is good".

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#32

Post by rory096 » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 5:20 PM UTC

bobbyi_settv wrote: post #18

rory096 wrote: post #4

I 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 seems kind of self-defeating to wish that news outlets would avoid mentioning one of the most noteworthy parts of a story because having it in the open may somehow hurt "freedom of speech".

Mention, sure. Highlight, sure. But this is the top article on a CEO's departure and it doesn't even mention the trigger incident until the 5th paragraph, below the second picture. It says nothing about /r/fatpeoplehate, even though that would support its argument that the internet is 'cruel' (though not that it's sexist).

It solely tries make Ellen Pao into a martyr for anti-sexism in SV.

And don't get me wrong, the nasty behavior on reddit probably warrants an article. I'd argue that the prescription shouldn't be to hide people's behavior through censorship but to change it, whether by convincing them to self-censor or better changing people's minds, which I think sama did well in his announcement. But as a summary overview of why Reddit has a new CEO, this article failed miserably.

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#33

Post by gambler » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 5:20 PM UTC

The fact that they deleted the original version, rather than added or appended the new one is very telling. People worked on writing and editing it and that work got thrown away. "Hey, Mike, sorry." Why do you think that is?

You know, in the age of hypertext and search engines you would think that news would become more focused on actual events and facts. (Because anyone who cares could follow the links and do searches to get background information.)

Instead, everyone races to push forward more "analysis" and "context". We get "news" articles that pull in unrelated issues, do everything possible to frame the facts, and use emotionally loaded language wherever possible.

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#34

Post by rory096 » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 5:21 PM UTC

notcensorship wrote: post #22

rory096 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it is. It's just not freedom of speech. > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

It's incredibly disingenuous to claim that having some guidelines on a private forum (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html ) counts as "Internet Censorship". You are actively supporting hatred by making that argument. It is not censorship or suppression of speech to tell a bigot that they can no longer borrow your megaphone. The bigot remains free to buy, build, or borrow another megaphone, a fact demon…

Let me be clear. I do not support the offensive behavior on reddit. I just think censorship and moderation is not an effective or desirable solution.

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#35

Post by pcrh » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 5:22 PM UTC

I wonder how much the stability of the URL influences this sort of editing. If traffic is coming in via a site such as reddit, a new article with a new URL might not get as much traffic as an edited version of the original article.

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#36

Post by sasori » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 5:23 PM UTC

stretchwithme wrote: post #29

clamprecht wrote: post #15

I think a lesson everyone should have in life is witnessing something first-hand in real life, and then reading about it in the media, and seeing how incredibly inaccurate media articles are. Anytime I read an article about a subject I actually have first-hand knowledge of, it reaffirms the lesson.

Not just true of "internet" journalism. To write accurately about something that you don't understand is hard. You either have to be very vague or take the time required. If anything, the internet allows you to publish revisions of the original article, allowing you to correct your mistakes. Very hard to do with the traditional newspaper.

so true

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#37

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 5:24 PM UTC

rory096 wrote: post #14

notcensorship wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sure it is. It's just not freedom of speech. > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

[deleted]

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#38

Post by mmphosis » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 5:25 PM UTC

clamprecht wrote: post #15

I think a lesson everyone should have in life is witnessing something first-hand in real life, and then reading about it in the media, and seeing how incredibly inaccurate media articles are. Anytime I read an article about a subject I actually have first-hand knowledge of, it reaffirms the lesson.

note: I am not a journalist, but I have worked with journalists.

I agree with you as it reaffirms to me how inaccurate media articles are. There are few to no news resources that provide in-depth investigative journalism. The internet makes the news slower because I check multiple diverse sources, and often the report, bias, story is different. It's interesting.

I also see where the story/article is continuously updated by mainstream internet news agencies to fix inaccuracies, spelling, grammar, reduce liability, change the title, change the entire story, change the bias, etc... The comments are almost always more interesting than the actual news report, and can often provide a more accurate report of what actually happened. What were once former respectable news organizations doing investigative reporting no longer exist. We cannot expect "journalism" when reading news on the internet, we need to do that work ourselves.

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#39

Post by bithead » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 5:25 PM UTC

clamprecht wrote: post #15

I think a lesson everyone should have in life is witnessing something first-hand in real life, and then reading about it in the media, and seeing how incredibly inaccurate media articles are. Anytime I read an article about a subject I actually have first-hand knowledge of, it reaffirms the lesson.

To be fair, that's not just true of "media" - try talking to a person with third hand knowledge compared to first hand knowledge. It's more a human phenomenon than just a 'media' phenomenon.

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#40

Post by dimal » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 5:25 PM UTC

pron wrote: post #17

brudgers wrote: post #6

As 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.…

But why not add the new story as a separate analysis piece, as the NYT often does? What did they gain by changing the original?

They were likely getting a lot of views at that url and they didn't want to lose their SEO juice.