5 ms·
I am confused why NPR removed the story instead of adding this correction to it. It seems that this revelation only makes the story more interesting, given that
by vinhboy 8y ago
I am confused why NPR removed the story instead of adding this correction to it. It seems that this revelation only makes the story more interesting, given that it's about a con-man.
- neonate 8y agoPerhaps he is litigious and they don't want the hassle, or their lawyers told them he has a case.
- scott_s 8y agoRemoving the story is the correction. They no longer consider it a valid story; that it is now more interesting is not relevant to the ethics.
- vinhboy 8y agoI had to visit like 3 different sites to understand the whole story. I feel like NPR got caught up in this scam. They should use the opportunity to investigate how this happened instead of burying it.
- jrochkind1 8y agoMaybe they are in the midst of such. It would be a good story.
- bamboo_7 8y agoThis American Life did an entire episode about correcting one of their earlier episodes when they found out that the individual had made up many of the details. Honestly, the retraction episode was better than the original one: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/454/mr-daisey-and-the-apple-factory https://www.thisamericanlife.org/454/mr-daisey-and-the-apple...
- jrochkind1 8y agoI actually went and emailed the NPR Ombudsmen (who posted a short thing about the OP that someone else linked to in these HN comments) suggesting they do such a follow-up story.
- danso 8y agoThe ombudsman also addressed it: https://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2018/04/12/601650762/npr-issues-rare-retraction https://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2018/04/12/601650762/...
- sjsjxhhc 8y agoThere’s additional information there, but it still gave me more questions than answers. If the problem was just that they didn’t talk to the author, that could be resolved by a correction with a quote from the author, or “x could not be reached for comment”. The statement that that they would have “essentially had to construct a different story” implies that there is something more complicated going on here, and invites confusion and speculation.
- vinhboy 8y ago> NPR's standard procedure in cases of errors is to make a correction, not remove a story entirely, as was done in this case. Glad to hear that the ombudsman raised the same issue I am raising here.
- scott_s 8y agoThis is not what burying a story looks like. This is publicly owning up to your mistakes and trying to correct the record.
- dingo_bat 8y agoBut they published it. They should not remove it. Publish a correction. Removal is not acceptable.
- danso 8y agoWhy not?
- mieseratte 8y agoKnowledge is power! By presenting us the full-picture, we can potentially guard ourselves in the future.
- danso 8y agoBut NPR is asserting that its story was fundamentally flawed. Leaving it as is, even with a massive correction note, implies that the story has some worth, when in actuality it may be completely misleading because of the lack of reporting.
- dingo_bat 8y agoIt does have worth. It is a warning to them to not publish stuff not fully vetted. Removing the article makes everything else vapor. It diminishes the worth of everything they publish.
- danso 8y agoYou believe that the lesson is forgotten, even though the content of the retracted article is now several paragraphs describing the errors that led to the retraction? How exactly is that not a warning to journalists in the future?
- dingo_bat 8y agoHow do I know what the mistake was? I did not read the original article. There is no proper way for me to understand the issue. Yeah I can go look up archives people took before they purged the article, but that is besides the point. NPR has hidden their mistake. They have made it impossible for a reader to fully understand the blunder they committed. It doesn't help anyone. It certainly doesn't inspire trust in their journalistic capability.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- chiefalchemist 8y agoAgreed. Re-write the story as it should have been done. Then do an additional article that walks us all through the process, what was changed, and why. Not only would that be transparent, it would (read: should) give more people a better idea of what (real?) journalism is (or should be). Perhaps redact some of the original to avoid legal issues. That makes sense. Welcome to the age of "the un-article"? That aside, I'm surprised / disappointed there's not a better CMS to handle such things. Couldn't / shouldn't - within reason - news articles be more fluid, in the sense time exposes more facts, etc.? The static story model made sense for print. There was no other choice. I would think technology could do better at this point.
- jrochkind1 8y agoThe articles on most major newspaper websites these days indeed evolve after first publication. The text you are looking at at any given time isn't necessarily the exact text that was there a few hours ago, or at first publication. But they don't really tell you that or give you any way to see history. On nytimes, sometimes you get a note at the bottom of a web article "This article, with slightly different text, was published on page X of the Y print edition." I can't find an example now so that's paraphrasing from memory.
- jahlove 8y ago> Turpin said, "In order to fix the problems, we would have essentially had to construct a different story," a process that he said would have been "intellectually dishonest. There comes a point that you can't fix a story appropriately." He said the decision was not made lightly; "we believe strongly we don't want to disappear material for any reason if we can possibly keep from taking it down." https://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2018/04/12/601650762/npr-issues-rare-retraction https://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2018/04/12/601650762/...