6 ms·

Beyond feelings about the verdict itself, it is interesting that a single lapse in journalistic integrity has the potential to put a major news organization lik

Beyond feelings about the verdict itself, it is interesting that a single lapse in journalistic integrity has the potential to put a major news organization like Rolling Stone out of business. There are massive incentives to publish sensational articles, but as this case and the Gawker case have shown, there are also massive incentives to not publish specific details. The BuzzFeed model (which is perhaps shared by social media at large) is to simply provide a platform, and let other people stir the pot. I hope that doesn't become the only way to circulate ideas.

tonmoy 10y ago
But this is also the reason I am more inclined to trust major news organizations compared to Buzz Feed or other social media
dlss 10y ago
FWIW I come to HN for the comments, not really for the articles. I think maybe half of us use HN this way. This is to say that the platform approach has the advantage of allowing actually informed/skeptical/intelligent people to do the talking. They can discuss subjects they know, at their own pace. Contrast with traditional journalism, where even when things go right you're still dealing with someone who's reporting on things outside their profession, probably on a deadline, and beset by an industry (public relations) basically devoted to deceiving them. This is to say I'm actually fairly sure the platform approach, at least from first principals, beats the traditional approach in terms of quality. (On a side note, I just had an awful thought: are there PR people reaching out to the top HN authors?)
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  > (On a side note, I just had an awful thought: are there PR people reaching out to the top HN authors?) That definitely happens on other social new/media. I'm not sure why HN would be any different?
- WillPostForFood 10y ago
  Worse thought for you: top HN authors are paid PR people.
  - neuland 10y ago
    I've seen this a lot on the internet, especially on Reddit. And, I'm not saying it doesn't happen. Native advertising is everywhere now-a-days. But, people are always vague on details, which makes me somewhat skeptical. I'd be interested to hear more information on how this works. Like, what U.S. companies are doing this (either PR companies doing the posting or their clients)? How much are they paying, and what kind of outcomes do they like to see? Like, how do they measure success? Does it work? etc.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      See https://reddit.com/r/hailcorporate https://reddit.com/r/hailcorporate Spottings of planted / submarine / astroturf pieces.
      - neuland 10y ago
        Ooh, thanks for the reminder about this subreddit. I've actually been there before and remember it being quite funny. Lots of examples of subtle (and not so subtle) product placement.
  - morgante 10y ago
    Do you have any evidence for this outrageously false claim? I know several of the top commenters [0] and know they are absolutely not paid PR people. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders
    - oh_sigh 10y ago
      Referencing 0 but not including it in your post doesn't hell your argument
- seanwilson 10y ago
  > This is to say that the platform approach has the advantage of allowing actually informed/skeptical/intelligent people to do the talking. They can discuss subjects they know, at their own pace. Contrast with traditional journalism, where even when things go right you're still dealing with someone who's reporting on things outside their profession, probably on a deadline, and beset by an industry (public relations) basically devoted to deceiving them. I agree with this. At least with site comments you get to read a variety of viewpoints and viewpoints are actively criticised so if some facts or perspectives are dubious it's usually really obvious. This isn't true when you stick to one news article which is sometimes nothing better than a long-form comment if it's poor journalism anyway. There is the hive mind aspect with commenting communities which is bad but you get similar group think on news sites and you have to engage your critical thinking skills at some point.
hga 10y ago
It's not clear to Rolling Stone is in such jeopardy, they didn't, for example, exhibit contempt for the judicial process from beginning to end, they, I assume, have real libel insurance and are cooperating with their insurance company (although I wonder how policies are written to deal with actual malice findings). They're going to take a big hit here, and the fraternity lawsuit is likely to be much uglier, but as of yet it doesn't seem to be an existential threat. Gawker and it's empire, though, were an outlier, for example making a business model such as it was out of "actual malice", it was only a matter of time until they were brought down. And taking a step back, I think it's vital that our system has effective feedback like court cases such as this, especially in the post-New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan) era where the bar has been set so high for "public figures" that, all things considered, libel and slander law is non-operative for pretty much everyone but scientists (who are't public figures and who's reputation is vital for their careers, such suits don't make sense and therefore are seldom pursued without serious damages being on the line).
Shivetya 10y ago
with this level of dereliction of journalistic integrity they should suffer greatly. they were looking to bring down a public University if not more. When you put it all on the table you damn well need to be sure on the bet you are taking
makomk 10y ago
This probably isn't nearly enough to put Rolling Stone out of business, and as I understand it merely failing to follow basic journalistic practices because the story matched up with what they want to believe wouldn't have been enough to get a defamation ruling against them. They're only in legal trouble because they repeated the false claims after concluding they were false.

tonmoy 10y ago

But this is also the reason I am more inclined to trust major news organizations compared to Buzz Feed or other social media

dlss 10y ago

FWIW I come to HN for the comments, not really for the articles. I think maybe half of us use HN this way. This is to say that the platform approach has the advantage of allowing actually informed/skeptical/intelligent people to do the talking. They can discuss subjects they know, at their own pace. Contrast with traditional journalism, where even when things go right you're still dealing with someone who's reporting on things outside their profession, probably on a deadline, and beset by an industry (public relations) basically devoted to deceiving them. This is to say I'm actually fairly sure the platform approach, at least from first principals, beats the traditional approach in terms of quality. (On a side note, I just had an awful thought: are there PR people reaching out to the top HN authors?)

CaptSpify 10y ago
> (On a side note, I just had an awful thought: are there PR people reaching out to the top HN authors?) That definitely happens on other social new/media. I'm not sure why HN would be any different?
WillPostForFood 10y ago
Worse thought for you: top HN authors are paid PR people.
- neuland 10y ago
  I've seen this a lot on the internet, especially on Reddit. And, I'm not saying it doesn't happen. Native advertising is everywhere now-a-days. But, people are always vague on details, which makes me somewhat skeptical. I'd be interested to hear more information on how this works. Like, what U.S. companies are doing this (either PR companies doing the posting or their clients)? How much are they paying, and what kind of outcomes do they like to see? Like, how do they measure success? Does it work? etc.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    See https://reddit.com/r/hailcorporate https://reddit.com/r/hailcorporate Spottings of planted / submarine / astroturf pieces.
    - neuland 10y ago
      Ooh, thanks for the reminder about this subreddit. I've actually been there before and remember it being quite funny. Lots of examples of subtle (and not so subtle) product placement.
- morgante 10y ago
  Do you have any evidence for this outrageously false claim? I know several of the top commenters [0] and know they are absolutely not paid PR people. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders
  - oh_sigh 10y ago
    Referencing 0 but not including it in your post doesn't hell your argument
seanwilson 10y ago
> This is to say that the platform approach has the advantage of allowing actually informed/skeptical/intelligent people to do the talking. They can discuss subjects they know, at their own pace. Contrast with traditional journalism, where even when things go right you're still dealing with someone who's reporting on things outside their profession, probably on a deadline, and beset by an industry (public relations) basically devoted to deceiving them. I agree with this. At least with site comments you get to read a variety of viewpoints and viewpoints are actively criticised so if some facts or perspectives are dubious it's usually really obvious. This isn't true when you stick to one news article which is sometimes nothing better than a long-form comment if it's poor journalism anyway. There is the hive mind aspect with commenting communities which is bad but you get similar group think on news sites and you have to engage your critical thinking skills at some point.

hga 10y ago

It's not clear to Rolling Stone is in such jeopardy, they didn't, for example, exhibit contempt for the judicial process from beginning to end, they, I assume, have real libel insurance and are cooperating with their insurance company (although I wonder how policies are written to deal with actual malice findings). They're going to take a big hit here, and the fraternity lawsuit is likely to be much uglier, but as of yet it doesn't seem to be an existential threat. Gawker and it's empire, though, were an outlier, for example making a business model such as it was out of "actual malice", it was only a matter of time until they were brought down. And taking a step back, I think it's vital that our system has effective feedback like court cases such as this, especially in the post-New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan) era where the bar has been set so high for "public figures" that, all things considered, libel and slander law is non-operative for pretty much everyone but scientists (who are't public figures and who's reputation is vital for their careers, such suits don't make sense and therefore are seldom pursued without serious damages being on the line).

Shivetya 10y ago

with this level of dereliction of journalistic integrity they should suffer greatly. they were looking to bring down a public University if not more. When you put it all on the table you damn well need to be sure on the bet you are taking

makomk 10y ago

This probably isn't nearly enough to put Rolling Stone out of business, and as I understand it merely failing to follow basic journalistic practices because the story matched up with what they want to believe wouldn't have been enough to get a defamation ruling against them. They're only in legal trouble because they repeated the false claims after concluding they were false.