4 ms·

NYTimes is a news organization with a mandate to report on verifiable fact, not rumor or opinion. You're complaining that it's reported as a he-said-she-said ty

by SeoxyS 10y ago

NYTimes is a news organization with a mandate to report on verifiable fact, not rumor or opinion. You're complaining that it's reported as a he-said-she-said type of story… but for now, that's exactly what it is. The claims are quite plausible and convincing (and likely true), but at this point they still are merely unsubstantiated claims. If I were to imagine the right way to report such a story at this point, it would go like this (1) summarize the claims made, (2) include the response from the accused, and (3) emphasize that this is a developing story. That's pretty much what the NYT did. However, until a court or investigation corroborates the report, they shouldn't be reported as irrefutable fact. That said I agree that the comparison to the Ellen Pao case has no place in this report. Pao's case was quite different and much less convincing. In my distanced armchair opinion, she deserved to lose that case.

Retric 10y ago
If you want an objective fact, there was a drop from 25% women to 3% women. Now, it's not just he said she said.
- CydeWeys 10y ago
  I don't doubt for a second that that it's true, but what is the likelihood that the New York Times was able to verify it in less than a day? Is that something Uber is going to fess up to? They can simply say "no comment", and likely have. For all we know they're scrambling to move women into that department so that when the actual verifiable statistics do come out they're not so bad. To verify this comment well enough to publish it, the NY Times is going to have to go find enough SREs at Uber who are willing to talk to them (and likely risk losing their job if discovered) about these issues.
xg15 10y ago
It's not just about verified vs unverified claims, it's also how the claims are presented. The quotes from Fowler's blog are selective to misleading: As an example, the part where she describes HR's excuses is quoted in full ("first offense", "honest mistake") but the part where she notes those excuse are likely complete fabrications is left unmentioned. That makes it appear as if Fowler were overreacting even by her own claims when her actual claims are much more grave and substantial.
acchow 10y ago
I really wish papers could run non-stories along with the usual stories: "Uber Sexual Harassment Claims Story - In Progress This story is in progress, and the following are the verified facts: <insert facts here> The following are claims that no media has reliable, verifiable source on yet. If they are reporting on them as fact, you might want to reconsider what media you trust: <insert claims here> We will publish our full story when we the picture is clearer." As the newspaper of record, it's also helpful to differentiate the reliable and non-reliable media for us.
- dclowd9901 10y ago
  Sometimes merely repeating an unsubstantiated fact can expose a news org to liability. Take, for instance, a slander or libel case.
  - clubm8 10y ago
    That's not true. If you attribute what you say "X said", then X is guilty of slander/libel. (YMMV in England)
    - dclowd9901 10y ago
      In my journalism law classes in the US, precedent was dictated on the terms I described.
  - geezerjay 10y ago
    > unsubstantiated fact That's just like dry water. If it's a fact then it's verifiable. If it can't be verified, it isn't a fact: just baseless hearsay.
brudgers 10y ago
For comparison consider: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39024445 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39024445 The BBC provides a substantial account of Fowler's statement and places it in the context of her former employer's disclosure policies regarding diversity and those in the broader context of other tech industry corporations. The New York Times portrayed Fowler's statement as 'ordinary' sexual aggression that could happen any where there's a bad apple and ignored the management and human resource angles.

by SeoxyS 10y ago

Retric 10y ago

If you want an objective fact, there was a drop from 25% women to 3% women. Now, it's not just he said she said.

CydeWeys 10y ago
I don't doubt for a second that that it's true, but what is the likelihood that the New York Times was able to verify it in less than a day? Is that something Uber is going to fess up to? They can simply say "no comment", and likely have. For all we know they're scrambling to move women into that department so that when the actual verifiable statistics do come out they're not so bad. To verify this comment well enough to publish it, the NY Times is going to have to go find enough SREs at Uber who are willing to talk to them (and likely risk losing their job if discovered) about these issues.

xg15 10y ago

It's not just about verified vs unverified claims, it's also how the claims are presented. The quotes from Fowler's blog are selective to misleading: As an example, the part where she describes HR's excuses is quoted in full ("first offense", "honest mistake") but the part where she notes those excuse are likely complete fabrications is left unmentioned. That makes it appear as if Fowler were overreacting even by her own claims when her actual claims are much more grave and substantial.

acchow 10y ago

I really wish papers could run non-stories along with the usual stories: "Uber Sexual Harassment Claims Story - In Progress This story is in progress, and the following are the verified facts: <insert facts here> The following are claims that no media has reliable, verifiable source on yet. If they are reporting on them as fact, you might want to reconsider what media you trust: <insert claims here> We will publish our full story when we the picture is clearer." As the newspaper of record, it's also helpful to differentiate the reliable and non-reliable media for us.

dclowd9901 10y ago
Sometimes merely repeating an unsubstantiated fact can expose a news org to liability. Take, for instance, a slander or libel case.
- clubm8 10y ago
  That's not true. If you attribute what you say "X said", then X is guilty of slander/libel. (YMMV in England)
  - dclowd9901 10y ago
    In my journalism law classes in the US, precedent was dictated on the terms I described.
- geezerjay 10y ago
  > unsubstantiated fact That's just like dry water. If it's a fact then it's verifiable. If it can't be verified, it isn't a fact: just baseless hearsay.

brudgers 10y ago

For comparison consider: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39024445 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39024445 The BBC provides a substantial account of Fowler's statement and places it in the context of her former employer's disclosure policies regarding diversity and those in the broader context of other tech industry corporations. The New York Times portrayed Fowler's statement as 'ordinary' sexual aggression that could happen any where there's a bad apple and ignored the management and human resource angles.