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

What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

savingjournalism.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 266 posts

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#91

Post by seventytwo »

vharuck wrote: post #43
seventytwo wrote: post #28

Seems like it would be easy to have a change log at the bottom of every article that tracks edits. There’s probably three free widgets like this on GitHub that would work just fine.

I've seen articles on NPR and Reuters that have brief summaries of edits at the bottom. Stuff like "Edited to correct affiliation of Dr X. The article originally and incorrectly said she worked at Y University." They'll also put an "edited at" time at the top.

Yes, those are good. But it would be so easy to have a GitHub-style change log, and/or a Wikipedia-style “talk” section where rationale for changes is discussed.

It could increase attention and time on the site as well, good for the bottom lines at the outfits too.

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#92

Post by jkhdigital »

chmod775 wrote: post #86
TrispusAttucks wrote: post #61

For most news organizations in our new world order it's not an error if it's intentional bias. Those are called lies. Lies have a purpose. We need to ask, "Why lie?". And then use the answer to fix the news.

I don't think it's quite as nefarious as that. Like most humans journalists have opinions, and they are more likely to listen to things that confirm their opinions. Most people are not likely to ask "Is this really true?" of things that align with what they believe is probably true. Professional journalists are supposed to know about these kinds of biases - because if they do not they are professional only in name. F…

Don’t be too hard on them. The Internet destroyed most reporting, because now all the primary source material is available to anyone. I say “most” because there is still plenty of space for deep investigative work.

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#93

Post by confidantlake »

underseacables wrote: post #19

“ Most educated people believe that premier news outlets are inherently trustworthy.” Let’s stop right there. I think the last 8 years have shown the media to have lost significant amounts of public trust. I would say that most educated people inherently believe that the media should not automatically receive benefit of the doubt any longer.

What happened in the last 8 years? In 2003 there was the war in Iraq. The fallout from that was probably the lowest trust I had in journalism at any point in my life. I can't recall any significant events in the past 8 years that are even close to that failure.

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#94

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Pils wrote: post #78
branweb wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah it's a questionable claim for sure. This was a widely cited poll that asserted for the first time ever, the majority of Americans mistrust the mainstream media: https://www.axios.com/media-trust-crisis-2bf0ec1c-00c0-4901-... You'll note that trust varies widely by political party, with 18% of Republicans trusting the media vs 57% of Democrats. So the post in the op seems to equate "educated" with "democrat" perh…

> This was a widely cited poll that asserted for the first time ever, the majority of Americans mistrust the mainstream media A poll released by the largest PR firm in the world[0], famous for their work with Walmart, GEO Group, Keystone XL, etc. Why would the creators of "Working Families for Walmart" ever try to manufacture consent? One wonders. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edelman_(firm)

Reader distrusts media poll showing high distrust in media.

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#95

Post by barbacoa »

peruvian wrote: post #52
underseacables wrote: post #19

“ Most educated people believe that premier news outlets are inherently trustworthy.” Let’s stop right there. I think the last 8 years have shown the media to have lost significant amounts of public trust. I would say that most educated people inherently believe that the media should not automatically receive benefit of the doubt any longer.

Media has been fully untrustworthy since Operation Mockingbird.

Operation mockingbird never ended.

https://theintercept.com/2014/09/04/former-l-times-reporter-...

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#96

Post by 0xy »

zaik wrote: post #69
0xy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More often they stealth edit to remove evidence of their inaccuracies or lies, though.

Source?

https://twitter.com/jerrydunleavy/status/1308586151771549698

https://twitter.com/JerylBier/status/1239624136118468608

That's just dishonest stealth editing. Reuters in particular has been known to spread intelligence/CIA propaganda (particularly during the Turkey coup).

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#97

Post by DSingularity »

confidantlake wrote: post #93
underseacables wrote: post #19

“ Most educated people believe that premier news outlets are inherently trustworthy.” Let’s stop right there. I think the last 8 years have shown the media to have lost significant amounts of public trust. I would say that most educated people inherently believe that the media should not automatically receive benefit of the doubt any longer.

What happened in the last 8 years? In 2003 there was the war in Iraq. The fallout from that was probably the lowest trust I had in journalism at any point in my life. I can't recall any significant events in the past 8 years that are even close to that failure.

Thank you. I can’t believe how quickly people forget. Trump is the tip of the iceberg. The Iraq War. The plight of the Palestinians. Russians. Go look at the coverage of these issues, the bias and outright abandonment of facts — it’s disgusting and disgraceful.

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#99

Post by robin21 »

When and why did NYT turn to trash? It feels like they completely sold out for clicks. As if someone was watching the revenue above all else. At the same time evolved into a liberal echo chamber.

Was it a leadership change or an owners strategic vision or Trump or just a sign of the changing times.

And what do they do now Trump is gone ans there is no more outrage to sell if they were after clicks.

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#100

Post by Context_free »

About a week after the US invasion of Iraq happened, something which New Yorker editor David Remnick heavily pushed, the magazine ran a 10000+ word hit piece on anti-war critic (and theory of computation Chomsky Normal Form creator) Noam Chomsky

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/03/31/the-devils-acc...

To pull one thing from this long article - one of the thousands of petitions Chomsky signed over the years was one regarding a French professor named Robert Faurisson. The piece's author wrote:

"Robert Faurisson was a professor of French literature at the University of Lyon-2, in France, who had been suspended from his teaching duties after a mob of students protested his denials of the Holocaust."

This is correct, but something is left out. Faurisson was threatened with prison as well. In fact he got a suspended prison sentence. Chomsky said at the time people should not be imprisoned for publishing books. The piece's author excluded this information from the reader. "He is against governments imprisoning people for writing books" doesn't have quite the ring of the two paragraphs the author wrote on the topic.

Post reply on HN