8 ms·

For those who don't know, newspapers often have a Reader's editor whose job it is is to criticise and be the voice of the readers inside the newspaper. In this

For those who don't know, newspapers often have a Reader's editor whose job it is is to criticise and be the voice of the readers inside the newspaper. In this case, this is written by that person for the Guardian after what would appear to be a thorough investigation of the matter. There's a lot of people here saying this should have happened faster, they're likely right, but also, given how extensive and thorough this is, it is more likely an example of how old-school editorial rigour just takes a lot of time.

stdbrouw 9y ago
Actually, and sadly, very few newspapers still have ombudsmen.
- chishaku 9y ago
  Like the NYT, which just eliminated their public editor role.
  - pas 9y ago
    Oh. Did they give any reasons?
    - mtVessel 9y ago
      "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" Although, what Sulzberger actually said was: “Our followers on social media and our readers across the internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be,” he wrote. “Our responsibility is to empower all of those watchdogs, and to listen to them, rather than to channel their voice through a single office.” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/business/media/new-york-times-buyouts.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/business/media/new-york-t...
      - Karunamon 9y ago
        A world-weary cynical read: "Our followers on social media and readers can be ignored a lot easier than a guy in our office, so when complaints come in, we can simply sweep them under the rug"
        obmelvin 9y ago
        I would greatly disagree with that. The rest of the world can see complaints on social media, whereas no one knows if the guy in the office is being ignored.
        pas 9y ago
        The designated commissar could also use twitter too.
        obmelvin 9y ago
        Eh, one person's twitter can be ignored. These days people get so worked up on social media anytime a brand does anything (i.e. people getting mad a cinnabon for their carrie fisher bun pic - http://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2016/12/27/a9c2ac0c-334d-408b-9309-05fb3d0abfd9/resize/620x/a5dc44013c1008e2d6da82408d05b4d5/cinnabon-carrie-fisher-death-2016-12-28.png http://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2016/12/27/a9c2ac0c-3...). I think social media can serve as a watchdog for more important issues, too.
      - misterhtmlcss 9y ago
        That's funny, because I don't see the logic there beyond it sounding superficially like a savvy decision to cut costs and leverage the community, however the role shouldn't really be a single person in the modern era, but an advocate collating voices and ensuring the editors and writers are informed by an opposing (or descenting) voice within their ranks or you risk a form of 'group think', which I believe probably had more to do with the Guardian's error than anything else.
- Freak_NL 9y ago
  The New York Times retiring their ombudsman was high profile news, but is there actually a trend of (quality) newspapers removing that role from their staff? The NYT move was widely criticised by its peers (not just by the other ombudsmen, but by the newspapers themselves in their respective editorials).
dublinben 9y ago
I'm just glad to know that their ombudsman has safely returned from their vacation.[0] Some of us were getting worried. [0] https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/826872065009422336 https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/826872065009422336
eridius 9y ago
6 months isn't just "a lot of time". 6 months is "let's wait until everyone completely forgets about this and hope we can slide the apology under the radar".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- egeozcan 9y ago
  I feel that it took long because the security "issue" is not discussed on technical merits anymore. The technical side of the study is very well understood by practically anyone. People have different type of opinions on the matter not because they misinterpret the technical details but because they have different expectations on how the privacy situation will end up being for different groups in the light of this knowledge. So all of this makes it way harder to define if the story was overblown or not. Apparently Guardian editors ended up thinking that it was indeed, after giving it a long consideration. This is not a technical fact (and it cannot be), it is just their interpretation of it (and also the interpretation of many security experts but that's not the point).
  - willstrafach 9y ago
    Could you explain why you believe this is about opinions and interpretations, not the technical facts? I disagree with that assertion, but would really be interested to know if there is something I am missing.
    - egeozcan 9y ago
      Because technically a "flaw" in the system, however impractical to be exploited, did exist and it would be correct to point to that fact. Discussion of if this reaction is overblown and if it would direct users to more dangerous methods of communication is where it stops being technical. It could be that I am the one who is missing something. That's why we are discussing here, right? :)
      - 9y ago
idlewords 9y ago
The public editor, in private communication, attributed some of this delay to his difficulty in finding independent experts who hadn't signed the open letter. Apparently if you're so wrong that an entire field disagrees with you, you can get anything printed in the Guardian.
- untog 9y ago
  It's a kind of interesting problem to have. I can see the logic in trying to find someone not on the letter to verify that what it says is true... but when literally everyone agrees, the logic falls apart. I suspect this might be the side effect of excessive CYA. I'm not happy with it, but there have been so, so many articles that get the basic premises of tech completely wrong that I think I'd still rather them take an excessive amount of time checking than publish another ill-informed piece.
  - willstrafach 9y ago
    I really do not see the logic in seeking input from those who did not sign the letter. The reason I signed was specifically to help show them that a very large number of infosec experts disagreed with the reporting (And I am sure that is the reason many others signed).
    - jolic 9y ago
      Few of the people on the list have any, at least obvious, position outside of their field. The purpose of seeking input is to make sure that this isn't 72 "climate change deniers" in fringe positions or with their own "custom" organisations.
      - willstrafach 9y ago
        I understand what you are trying to say, but you might want to check out the full list. It contains people who have various strong opinions on different nuanced security related topics, yet all agree regarding this. I think that is why it is strange to brush aside the signatories.
jsl1212 9y ago
It's their institutional lack of "old-school editorial rigour" that got them into this mess. The article gives no indication of what they have done or will do to prevent such poor reporting going forward. In the six months it took them to publish this they could have taken some steps to ensure their team has the resources it needs to better report on these areas in the future. Unfortunately, I think this op ed is too little too late for the Guardian as far as their credibility is concerned.
- nailer 9y ago
  It was already too late for The Guardian's credibility when they reported that Mark Duggan was 'unarmed' before the 2011 riots. Here's their apology: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/23/pcc-guardian-mark-duggan-headline https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/201...

stdbrouw 9y ago

Actually, and sadly, very few newspapers still have ombudsmen.

chishaku 9y ago
Like the NYT, which just eliminated their public editor role.
- pas 9y ago
  Oh. Did they give any reasons?
  - mtVessel 9y ago
    "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" Although, what Sulzberger actually said was: “Our followers on social media and our readers across the internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be,” he wrote. “Our responsibility is to empower all of those watchdogs, and to listen to them, rather than to channel their voice through a single office.” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/business/media/new-york-times-buyouts.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/business/media/new-york-t...
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      A world-weary cynical read: "Our followers on social media and readers can be ignored a lot easier than a guy in our office, so when complaints come in, we can simply sweep them under the rug"
      - obmelvin 9y ago
        I would greatly disagree with that. The rest of the world can see complaints on social media, whereas no one knows if the guy in the office is being ignored.
        pas 9y ago
        The designated commissar could also use twitter too.
        obmelvin 9y ago
        Eh, one person's twitter can be ignored. These days people get so worked up on social media anytime a brand does anything (i.e. people getting mad a cinnabon for their carrie fisher bun pic - http://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2016/12/27/a9c2ac0c-334d-408b-9309-05fb3d0abfd9/resize/620x/a5dc44013c1008e2d6da82408d05b4d5/cinnabon-carrie-fisher-death-2016-12-28.png http://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2016/12/27/a9c2ac0c-3...). I think social media can serve as a watchdog for more important issues, too.
    - misterhtmlcss 9y ago
      That's funny, because I don't see the logic there beyond it sounding superficially like a savvy decision to cut costs and leverage the community, however the role shouldn't really be a single person in the modern era, but an advocate collating voices and ensuring the editors and writers are informed by an opposing (or descenting) voice within their ranks or you risk a form of 'group think', which I believe probably had more to do with the Guardian's error than anything else.
Freak_NL 9y ago
The New York Times retiring their ombudsman was high profile news, but is there actually a trend of (quality) newspapers removing that role from their staff? The NYT move was widely criticised by its peers (not just by the other ombudsmen, but by the newspapers themselves in their respective editorials).

dublinben 9y ago

I'm just glad to know that their ombudsman has safely returned from their vacation.[0] Some of us were getting worried. [0] https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/826872065009422336 https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/826872065009422336

eridius 9y ago

6 months isn't just "a lot of time". 6 months is "let's wait until everyone completely forgets about this and hope we can slide the apology under the radar".

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
egeozcan 9y ago
I feel that it took long because the security "issue" is not discussed on technical merits anymore. The technical side of the study is very well understood by practically anyone. People have different type of opinions on the matter not because they misinterpret the technical details but because they have different expectations on how the privacy situation will end up being for different groups in the light of this knowledge. So all of this makes it way harder to define if the story was overblown or not. Apparently Guardian editors ended up thinking that it was indeed, after giving it a long consideration. This is not a technical fact (and it cannot be), it is just their interpretation of it (and also the interpretation of many security experts but that's not the point).
- willstrafach 9y ago
  Could you explain why you believe this is about opinions and interpretations, not the technical facts? I disagree with that assertion, but would really be interested to know if there is something I am missing.
  - egeozcan 9y ago
    Because technically a "flaw" in the system, however impractical to be exploited, did exist and it would be correct to point to that fact. Discussion of if this reaction is overblown and if it would direct users to more dangerous methods of communication is where it stops being technical. It could be that I am the one who is missing something. That's why we are discussing here, right? :)
    - 9y ago

idlewords 9y ago

The public editor, in private communication, attributed some of this delay to his difficulty in finding independent experts who hadn't signed the open letter. Apparently if you're so wrong that an entire field disagrees with you, you can get anything printed in the Guardian.

untog 9y ago
It's a kind of interesting problem to have. I can see the logic in trying to find someone not on the letter to verify that what it says is true... but when literally everyone agrees, the logic falls apart. I suspect this might be the side effect of excessive CYA. I'm not happy with it, but there have been so, so many articles that get the basic premises of tech completely wrong that I think I'd still rather them take an excessive amount of time checking than publish another ill-informed piece.
- willstrafach 9y ago
  I really do not see the logic in seeking input from those who did not sign the letter. The reason I signed was specifically to help show them that a very large number of infosec experts disagreed with the reporting (And I am sure that is the reason many others signed).
  - jolic 9y ago
    Few of the people on the list have any, at least obvious, position outside of their field. The purpose of seeking input is to make sure that this isn't 72 "climate change deniers" in fringe positions or with their own "custom" organisations.
    - willstrafach 9y ago
      I understand what you are trying to say, but you might want to check out the full list. It contains people who have various strong opinions on different nuanced security related topics, yet all agree regarding this. I think that is why it is strange to brush aside the signatories.

jsl1212 9y ago

It's their institutional lack of "old-school editorial rigour" that got them into this mess. The article gives no indication of what they have done or will do to prevent such poor reporting going forward. In the six months it took them to publish this they could have taken some steps to ensure their team has the resources it needs to better report on these areas in the future. Unfortunately, I think this op ed is too little too late for the Guardian as far as their credibility is concerned.

nailer 9y ago
It was already too late for The Guardian's credibility when they reported that Mark Duggan was 'unarmed' before the 2011 riots. Here's their apology: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/23/pcc-guardian-mark-duggan-headline https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/201...