10 ms·

Great news! You should buy the New York Times. You can even do so monthly! Their original article on this subject is at http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/19/busin

Great news! You should buy the New York Times. You can even do so monthly! Their original article on this subject is at http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/19/business/big-jury-award-for-coffee-burn.html http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/19/business/big-jury-award-fo.... Note how it doesn't lie to you. It's the "just the facts" approach people worship. Arguably, if they had foreseen what that story would become in mainstream folklore, they would have wanted to add some graphic images etc. But I doubt anybody knew at the time how interested parties would instrumentalize this story.

DrScump 10y ago
The same New York Times that reported as late as November 16th that Clinton won 50.4% of the popular vote (with no qualification)?
- matt4077 10y ago
  Wait, isn't that actually true? And doesn't she have plenty of qualifications? I mean – she's passed the bar exam, right?
  - j1vms 10y ago
    I think what buddy means there (the grandparent post) is that the NYTimes statement/claim in its article had not been qualified by reference (i.e. attribution), rather than that Clinton herself was unqualified for the job. That's how I read it.
    - matt4077 10y ago
      Yeah, I was joking. Of course they meant a qualification to remind people that she lost the election. (...which I think is quite far 'out there' with regards to examples of lies spread by the media. But maybe the NYT and I are wrong in assuming that everybody knows about President-elect by now.)
      - comex 10y ago
        ...She didn't win 50.4% of the popular vote. She won 48.2% to Trump's 46.3%, as of the latest count. But I'd like a citation for New York Times reporting that she did.
        DrScump 10y ago
        The exact quote through at least the 16th, as pointed out on HN at the time: "Popular vote For Clinton 50.4% ... For Trump 49.6%" Check the Wayback Machine for this page: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/16/us/politics/100000004770186.mobile.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/16/us/politics/10... Then look at its accurate rewording now.
        comex 10y ago
        I see. The earliest copy of that page on the Wayback Machine includes the label about only counting Clinton and Trump, but I'll take your word for it that it was originally missing. It seems like a pretty minor error given that it was a small part of an article primarily focused on comparing the counties won by Clinton and Trump, and was apparently promptly corrected, but eh. (And of course their main election results page has the right numbers.)
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - DrScump 10y ago
    No, the claim had no qualification that they were omitting all other candidates from the totals and stating the percentages of the total votes for just those two candidates (a contortion they had never used before, not even in 2000). They simply stated that Clinton had won 50.4% of the popular vote (exact wording: "Popular vote For Clinton 50.4% ... For Trump 49.6%"). It wasn't until sometime after the 16th that it was accurately restated. Perhaps the original edition can be found on the Wayback Machine, but this page was pointed out on HN at the time.
    - comex 10y ago
      I'd appreciate a link.
comex 10y ago
I'm not sure I'd hold out a stub of a story like that as a model of Times reporting. For what it's worth, here's a more in-depth story on coffee temperature from a few months later that mentions the case, although it doesn't go into detail on the case itself: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/12/garden/coffee-tea-or-ouch.html http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/12/garden/coffee-tea-or-ouch.... On the other hand, this article from 1995 on lawsuits against restaurants, which also mentions it, is quite sympathetic to the restaurants: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/12/weekinreview/the-nation-hey-waiter-now-there-s-a-lawyer-in-my-soup.html http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/12/weekinreview/the-nation-he... But not unreasonably so, I think. There are two sides to every story.
douche 10y ago
The New York Times needs to give up all pretenses of objectivity and openly declare itself as a propaganda organ. At least if it is going to continue on it's current path.

DrScump 10y ago

The same New York Times that reported as late as November 16th that Clinton won 50.4% of the popular vote (with no qualification)?

matt4077 10y ago
Wait, isn't that actually true? And doesn't she have plenty of qualifications? I mean – she's passed the bar exam, right?
- j1vms 10y ago
  I think what buddy means there (the grandparent post) is that the NYTimes statement/claim in its article had not been qualified by reference (i.e. attribution), rather than that Clinton herself was unqualified for the job. That's how I read it.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    Yeah, I was joking. Of course they meant a qualification to remind people that she lost the election. (...which I think is quite far 'out there' with regards to examples of lies spread by the media. But maybe the NYT and I are wrong in assuming that everybody knows about President-elect by now.)
    - comex 10y ago
      ...She didn't win 50.4% of the popular vote. She won 48.2% to Trump's 46.3%, as of the latest count. But I'd like a citation for New York Times reporting that she did.
      - DrScump 10y ago
        The exact quote through at least the 16th, as pointed out on HN at the time: "Popular vote For Clinton 50.4% ... For Trump 49.6%" Check the Wayback Machine for this page: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/16/us/politics/100000004770186.mobile.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/16/us/politics/10... Then look at its accurate rewording now.
        comex 10y ago
        I see. The earliest copy of that page on the Wayback Machine includes the label about only counting Clinton and Trump, but I'll take your word for it that it was originally missing. It seems like a pretty minor error given that it was a small part of an article primarily focused on comparing the counties won by Clinton and Trump, and was apparently promptly corrected, but eh. (And of course their main election results page has the right numbers.)
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- DrScump 10y ago
  No, the claim had no qualification that they were omitting all other candidates from the totals and stating the percentages of the total votes for just those two candidates (a contortion they had never used before, not even in 2000). They simply stated that Clinton had won 50.4% of the popular vote (exact wording: "Popular vote For Clinton 50.4% ... For Trump 49.6%"). It wasn't until sometime after the 16th that it was accurately restated. Perhaps the original edition can be found on the Wayback Machine, but this page was pointed out on HN at the time.
  - comex 10y ago
    I'd appreciate a link.

comex 10y ago

I'm not sure I'd hold out a stub of a story like that as a model of Times reporting. For what it's worth, here's a more in-depth story on coffee temperature from a few months later that mentions the case, although it doesn't go into detail on the case itself: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/12/garden/coffee-tea-or-ouch.html http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/12/garden/coffee-tea-or-ouch.... On the other hand, this article from 1995 on lawsuits against restaurants, which also mentions it, is quite sympathetic to the restaurants: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/12/weekinreview/the-nation-hey-waiter-now-there-s-a-lawyer-in-my-soup.html http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/12/weekinreview/the-nation-he... But not unreasonably so, I think. There are two sides to every story.

douche 10y ago

The New York Times needs to give up all pretenses of objectivity and openly declare itself as a propaganda organ. At least if it is going to continue on it's current path.