It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do
1–10 of 258 posts
Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do
#2[flagged]
Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do
#3[flagged]
Please tell me you aren’t referencing the “has described himself as ‘half-Jewish’” part.
Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do
#4That’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.”
Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do
#5[flagged]
What are you trying to imply here sir?
Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do
#6[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do
#7Could 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 myopic. You fundamentally need some different model of "slow journalism". Probably something more like Wiki where people need to site sources and things are updated and edited as they come together
Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do
#8I’m still not sure what to believe on that story. It’s not like Israel to intentionally blow up a hospital full of civilians. It’s not unlike them to do it on accident. It’s not unlike Hamas to blow up anything (intentionally or otherwise) and Israel and the US would both probably say they did it whether they did or did not.
The story would look the same no matter who did it.
Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do
#9A long time ago, I worked for a brand that bought expensive advertisements in the nytimes. The sales team invited me to be a silent attendee of the 'page one meeting', a meeting during which the editors decide which stories will be on the front page of the paper and how they will be presented. By that time, they were also discussing if certain stories warranted a push notification, and how tweets would be presented.
Two parts of Nate's post really stuck out to me as reflective of my experience that day:
>When a newsroom misreports a breaking story, does that reveal its editorial biases? Again, the obvious answer is “yes”, but I’d qualify that by saying it reflects the thought processes of the particular people who were on hand to make decisions at that particular moment.
This was quite literally true, as people entered and left the room throughout the meeting, and certain people were conferenced in while others were on vacation.
> In this account, the Times frames itself as an innocent, passive actor, one that’s merely reporting on the existence of the lava — neglecting its role in trying to steer it. That’s complete bullshit, because the Times is extremely and often somewhat proudly self-conscious of this role. “We set the agenda for the country” is literally the prevailing attitude in the building.
It was interesting to see how obviously you could predict which way an editor would try to steer a story, based on the way they presented their socioeconomic affiliations through their attire and behavior. There was also a slightly ridiculous moment, at the end of the meeting, where I was presented with a printout of the headlines for the following morning's papers as if it was a top-secret document.
Anyway, I mostly get my news from twitter nowadays. At least there, I find it a bit easier to make sense of who is misleading me and why.
Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do
#10I 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 left back to the Gaza explosion. It then presents “both sides of the issue” straight-faced, in a manner that appears to be asking the reader to decide — but of course one side is “Hamas said so” and the other is significant visual evidence, like the fact that the hospital is still standing, and there is video of a rocket misfiring, and voice recordings of Islamic Jihad admitting it was their rocket.
The article then concludes on a note of “I guess we will never know what happened because we won’t ever see all of the evidence”. It is maddening and just very, very strange.