71–80 of 277 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a very clear movement in journalism to create the narrative that Ellen Pao is a feminist hero. Apparently the NYT is in that cabal.
Please stop.
The update neither changes nor removes any of the substantive material from the original story (look carefully). It adds additional material, and fleshes some of the previous material out.
It seems like standard practice at newspapers to get a first take on a story and then flesh it out later. It's certainly standard practice at The New York Times, as even a casual look at NewsDiffs.org will show you: all sorts of pieces are effectively rewritten multiple times between their quick-take online version and the final print version. The Times never posts correction notices when that happens; they post them when they get something wrong.
Later
A thread running through this controversy is that the new NYT story is an "opinion piece". Let's analyze it, graf by graf. This list is numbered by graf; the summaries are my own (you could dispute them if you wanted).
1. Pao is a hero to many online for her gender equality fight, but was ousted by people online as well. This is mostly beyond dispute, except for the presumption that the Reddit mob actually did oust her, which all the principals in the story deny. That interpretation favors the Reddit mob.
2. Pao's resignation was abrupt and happened amidst a torrent of misogynist drama, renewing concerns about SV sexism. It's indisputable that her resignation was abrupt. It's indisputable that the story has generated concern about online sexism. Some people may not appreciate that concern, but that doesn't make its existence not a fact.
3. There is a debate about online invective, particularly around gender issues. Calls for Pao's ouster focused on her failed KPCB lawsuit. First point: indisputable (see: GamerGate). Second point: indisputable (see: petition for her ouster). Second point particularly interesting because the suit has no obvious connection with Reddit.
4. Pao's lawsuit revealed a culture that prized machismo. This is the closest the article comes to opening up a salient in the debate. I happen to agree that the trial proceedings and community response did that, but reasonable people could disagree. It would be hard to argue that the Times simply made this up, though.
5. Pao's popularity amongst Redditors was influenced by the lawsuit. Again: indisputable; the petition for her ouster leads off with it.
6: A direct quote from Reddit's chairman about Pao asserting that misogyny payed a role. Reported story is reported.
7: Pao's unpopularity generated a petition, and lots of ugly comments. Nobody disputes this.
8: A direct quote from Pao's resignation letter. Reported story is reported.
9: A direct quote from Pao, and background on Reddit. Reported story: still being reported!
10: A direct quote from Mitch Kapor on the demographics of Reddit. Still more reporting. Three quotes in this story so far, two from the story's principals, one from an extremely well-known person in the industry.
11: Direct quote from Kapor about gender issues on Reddit. Kapor is corroborating points raised earlier in the article.
12: Many subreddits went on strike over the firing of Victoria. Indisputable, and also the event that precipitated the story.
13: Pao posted an apology over her mismanagement of the site that was somewhat broad in scope. Indisputable fact, directly relevant to the core issue of the story.
14: Pao's ouster is a setback, after losing a lawsuit and turning down a lucrative settlement. Indisputable fact.
15: Kleiner's side of the story is that Pao was a bad investor. That is indeed their side of the story. The Times does not rebut it.
16: Pao owes a large amount of money, which the judge believes she's capable of paying. Still more facts.
17: Pao is unclear on how she's going to proceed with appeals. Still more facts.
18: If Pao succeeded in her appeal, the legal showdown between Pao and KPCB could recur. Factual, and relevant to the story: Pao's suit was, again, in the lede graf of the petition for her ouster, and it could happen again!
19: Huffman is the new Reddit CEO and part time at Hipmunk. Indisputable facts.
20: Huffman and Ohanian started Reddit. Indisputable facts.
21: Reddit is a private company with 50MM in funding. More undisputed facts.
22: Pao is remaining as an advisor, looking forward to getting more sleep.
I'll go ahead and say it: by no reasonable definition is this an "opinion piece".
Same thing happens with reporting on Qatar death toll of building stadiums for the World Cup in 2022, they have used a total number of deaths of immigrants in Qatar instead of those who build stadiums ( their overall death rate is on par with other counties even UK and USA), they have edited [1] the article since then but the original impression has been made and now people are throwing invalid "facts" everywhere bla…
Slave labor in Qatar and Dubai is real. Some of the living conditions literally have a sewage trough running right through the run-down and horrible housing complexes. Forced to shit where you eat, have our passport taken away, work unpaid, have no where to turn to for help, and be beaten if you don't meet standards every day. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/25/revealed-qatars... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/…
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.
That is very true, but you also have to keep in mind the flip side of this. The people who know the most about a subject, including ourselves, are likely the ones who will be most biased about it. Not saying that is exactly what happened in the NYT piece, but that is certainly feasible in situations like this. The first person who writes the article is the person who was on duty in the newsroom or its virtual equival…
Which isn't necessarily any worse than the external bias that the reporter/editor may have when covering a subject. And that bias is amplified coming from a place of ignorance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if the print edition is considered the record. The analogy would be eventual consistency in exchange for higher availability: the tradeoff is the occasional stale read.
I just don't agree. It's not as though this isn't a solved problem. And this isn't just a stale read, it's a bait and switch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if the print edition is considered the record. The analogy would be eventual consistency in exchange for higher availability: the tradeoff is the occasional stale read.
I just don't agree. It's not as though this isn't a solved problem. And this isn't just a stale read, it's a bait and switch.
I've believed since newsdiffs.org (mentioned in the OP) was launched that an in-house diff-tracker/displayer for the New York Times would be both a win in transparency, accuracy, and the company's bottom-line. The first two are mostly self-evident...in terms of improving the bottom-line...well, I often go to the NYT for breaking news. For a given event, they'll often have a main story which they update throughout the…
This is basic journalistic ethics, to post a log of corrections made to an article.
Those facts made the case for a racist and sexist crowd a bit too nuanced for a front page.
(Or maybe Asians and Indians are officially not counting now? They were getting too much in the way of the simply racist technoworld narrative?)