3 ms·

Is there any evidence that this change was the result of external pressure from Facebook, rather than as the result of internal NYT editing? Articles frequentl

Is there any evidence that this change was the result of external pressure from Facebook, rather than as the result of internal NYT editing? Articles frequently change in content, titles, and so on after publication, after all - that's why HN has to update titles so frequently. Edit: Whoops, missed it the first read-through. Looks like the change was confirmed by the original reporter to be as the result of a request from the Facebook PR team.

adambyrtek 9y ago
Respectable sites usually include a list of corrections and changes made to an article after publication. When it comes to submission titles, HN has a tendency to change them for no obvious reason even if the original title hasn't changed.
- masonic 9y ago
  Respectable sites usually include a list of corrections and changes made to an article after publication Respectable sources properly fact-check before publishing in the first place. Generally, most people who read an erroneous original will never see the corrected version.
- tptacek 9y ago
  NYT stories routinely change, sometimes substantially, between online and print versions, without corrections. There used to be a site that tracked this.
  - zevyoura 9y ago
    You may be thinking of http://newsdiffs.org http://newsdiffs.org Here's the page for the article in question: http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/https%3A/www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-alex-stamos.html http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/https%3A/www.nytimes.co...
snowwrestler 9y ago
Your edit is wrong; the NY Times reporter only confirmed the chronology, i.e. that the change happened at a later time than the contact from Facebook PR. She did not confirm that the change was a "result of a request from the Facebook PR team"; in fact she vehemently denied it on Twitter. The story in this blog post is bullshit; it's made up. > I was the NYT reporter who was in contact w/Facebook over our Stamos story yesterday. We didn't remove any references to Sandberg at Facebook's request. (For the record, Facebook made no such request). If anything we added MORE detail to the story between the 1st and 2nd versions https://twitter.com/sheeraf/status/976238483122487296 https://twitter.com/sheeraf/status/976238483122487296 EDIT to clarify: Nicole Perlroth is the reporter mentioned by name in the blog post who confirmed the chronology. Sheera Frenkel was another reporter on the same NYT byline who tweeted the above. Here's a tweet from Perlroth too: > Echoing Sheera here. @colinkalmbacher needs to correct his blog post to reflect that it is inaccurate, even his attempt at our name spellings. He should also address why he chose to ignore our responses, which contradicted everything he wrote. https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/976241288411430912 https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/976241288411430912
danso 9y ago
> Looks like the change was confirmed by the original reporter to be as the result of a request from the Facebook PR team. As snowwrestler pointed out, you are wrong in the most exact way. The OP article did not provide evidence or confirmation that Facebook PR team made this request, or that NYT made an editorial change because of FBPR. The OP says that it never got comment from Facebook PR. Meanwhile, the NYT reporters have outright denied that FBPR had any influence: https://twitter.com/sheeraf/status/976238483122487296 https://twitter.com/sheeraf/status/976238483122487296 https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/976159345195941888 https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/976159345195941888 The second tweet is probably more interesting. The reporter says that she talked to FB PR, because it was how FBPR wanted to deliver a formal statement re: Stamos. This is common practice, because of how anal/tightly wound companies are in wanting to control the official message is. And reporters have discretion of how to interpret or what to include from the PR message (the NYT apparently excerpted just, "as productive"). There is literally no evidence offered to support collusion between FB and NYT. There are no witnesses or whistleblowers, not even anonymous ones, with any claims. And everyone obviously involved (NYT and FB) has outright denied it. The headline for this story is absolute trash -- because the story doesn't even establish that Facebook even talked to NYT about changing its story, nevermind forcing the New York Times to censor itself. Under HN guidelines it should be changed to a much weaker assertion but I can't imagine how to water it down without rendering it pointless.

adambyrtek 9y ago

Respectable sites usually include a list of corrections and changes made to an article after publication. When it comes to submission titles, HN has a tendency to change them for no obvious reason even if the original title hasn't changed.

masonic 9y ago
Respectable sites usually include a list of corrections and changes made to an article after publication Respectable sources properly fact-check before publishing in the first place. Generally, most people who read an erroneous original will never see the corrected version.
tptacek 9y ago
NYT stories routinely change, sometimes substantially, between online and print versions, without corrections. There used to be a site that tracked this.
- zevyoura 9y ago
  You may be thinking of http://newsdiffs.org http://newsdiffs.org Here's the page for the article in question: http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/https%3A/www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-alex-stamos.html http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/https%3A/www.nytimes.co...

snowwrestler 9y ago

Your edit is wrong; the NY Times reporter only confirmed the chronology, i.e. that the change happened at a later time than the contact from Facebook PR. She did not confirm that the change was a "result of a request from the Facebook PR team"; in fact she vehemently denied it on Twitter. The story in this blog post is bullshit; it's made up. > I was the NYT reporter who was in contact w/Facebook over our Stamos story yesterday. We didn't remove any references to Sandberg at Facebook's request. (For the record, Facebook made no such request). If anything we added MORE detail to the story between the 1st and 2nd versions https://twitter.com/sheeraf/status/976238483122487296 https://twitter.com/sheeraf/status/976238483122487296 EDIT to clarify: Nicole Perlroth is the reporter mentioned by name in the blog post who confirmed the chronology. Sheera Frenkel was another reporter on the same NYT byline who tweeted the above. Here's a tweet from Perlroth too: > Echoing Sheera here. @colinkalmbacher needs to correct his blog post to reflect that it is inaccurate, even his attempt at our name spellings. He should also address why he chose to ignore our responses, which contradicted everything he wrote. https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/976241288411430912 https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/976241288411430912

danso 9y ago

> Looks like the change was confirmed by the original reporter to be as the result of a request from the Facebook PR team. As snowwrestler pointed out, you are wrong in the most exact way. The OP article did not provide evidence or confirmation that Facebook PR team made this request, or that NYT made an editorial change because of FBPR. The OP says that it never got comment from Facebook PR. Meanwhile, the NYT reporters have outright denied that FBPR had any influence: https://twitter.com/sheeraf/status/976238483122487296 https://twitter.com/sheeraf/status/976238483122487296 https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/976159345195941888 https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/976159345195941888 The second tweet is probably more interesting. The reporter says that she talked to FB PR, because it was how FBPR wanted to deliver a formal statement re: Stamos. This is common practice, because of how anal/tightly wound companies are in wanting to control the official message is. And reporters have discretion of how to interpret or what to include from the PR message (the NYT apparently excerpted just, "as productive"). There is literally no evidence offered to support collusion between FB and NYT. There are no witnesses or whistleblowers, not even anonymous ones, with any claims. And everyone obviously involved (NYT and FB) has outright denied it. The headline for this story is absolute trash -- because the story doesn't even establish that Facebook even talked to NYT about changing its story, nevermind forcing the New York Times to censor itself. Under HN guidelines it should be changed to a much weaker assertion but I can't imagine how to water it down without rendering it pointless.