4 ms·

It is no wonder people are turning to their echo chambers for news. Even the most established and respected (arguably) news organization can’t even do basic jou

by jbob2000 9y ago

It is no wonder people are turning to their echo chambers for news. Even the most established and respected (arguably) news organization can’t even do basic journalism.

jiveturkey 9y ago
What exactly is your criticism? That they published the original story? There's no such thing as perfection. It was caught and corrected. They seem to be operating at much higher than a "basic" level to me.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  The criticism is the removal of the original article. Any correction should be in addition, not removal of already published content.
  - danso 9y ago
    It's not a correction, it's a retraction. It's an admission that the story should not have been published, and that its assertions do not have NPR's standards of reported evidence.
    - dingo_bat 9y ago
      Ok, then they can admit it on the article. What is published must not be purged. Write a big notice on the page: This article has been retracted because it doesn't meet our standards. Removing it so nobody can see it is just plain censorship and goes against the essence of journalism and human decency.
      - danso 9y ago
        Well yes, retraction is the act of withdrawing something, so I guess you could consider it "censorship" or at least self-censorship.
      - bearcobra 9y ago
        I'm curious if that kind of note would protect a publisher from potential legal liability, or if removing it is the only way to avoid that.
      - huntedsnark 9y ago
        > just plain censorship Who are they censoring, themselves? The word "Censorship" has been so abused in the past few years it has ceased to have any real meaning in casual conversation. You can read their rationale for removing it rather than updating it here: https://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2018/04/12/601650762/npr-issues-rare-retraction https://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2018/04/12/601650762/... > 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."
      - burntwater 9y ago
        > What is published must not be purged. Why? Why must everything automatically stay in perpetuity? NPR owns the story. They paid to write it, they chose to publish it, they paid to put it online. The story is theirs. Why can't they do whatever they want with it?
    - vormalpg 9y ago
      Yet, it apparently did meet their standards of reported evidence a couple weeks ago. That means they owe a detailed explanation of what exactly changed in that time (some info has been given by the ombudsman) and how the failure will be prevented in the future. The original article should not be removed under any circumstances because it serves as part of the reporting record of NPR. For people to form accurate conclusions about the veracity of news sources, their failings must not be buried from view.
- jbob2000 9y ago
  My criticism is that news orgs shoot first and ask questions later. Even the news orgs we hold in very high regard (NPR) do it. To me, that means it's a systemic problem with the profession. They need to operate more like the justice system; you should be absolutely sure of the facts before you publish them. Yes, that means good stories sometimes won't be published, just like the justice system is sometimes unable to convict people even though they "did it".
  - bdcravens 9y ago
    > My criticism is that news orgs shoot first and ask questions later. Even the news orgs we hold in very high regard (NPR) do it. To me, that means it's a systemic problem with the profession. I don't have an answer, but I think news org are functioning in a world that demands the following: 1. We want news fast 2. We want news free 3. We want news free of ads
  - JustSomeNobody 9y ago
    > My criticism is that news orgs shoot first and ask questions later. That's a gross generalization. > Even the news orgs we hold in very high regard (NPR) do it. Source? > They need to operate more like the justice system; you should be absolutely sure of the facts before you publish them. One should never use absolutes as there are exceptions to nearly everything.

It is no wonder people are turning to their echo chambers for news. Even the most established and respected (arguably) news organization can’t even do basic journalism.

jiveturkey 9y ago

What exactly is your criticism? That they published the original story? There's no such thing as perfection. It was caught and corrected. They seem to be operating at much higher than a "basic" level to me.

dingo_bat 9y ago
The criticism is the removal of the original article. Any correction should be in addition, not removal of already published content.
- danso 9y ago
  It's not a correction, it's a retraction. It's an admission that the story should not have been published, and that its assertions do not have NPR's standards of reported evidence.
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    Ok, then they can admit it on the article. What is published must not be purged. Write a big notice on the page: This article has been retracted because it doesn't meet our standards. Removing it so nobody can see it is just plain censorship and goes against the essence of journalism and human decency.
    - danso 9y ago
      Well yes, retraction is the act of withdrawing something, so I guess you could consider it "censorship" or at least self-censorship.
    - bearcobra 9y ago
      I'm curious if that kind of note would protect a publisher from potential legal liability, or if removing it is the only way to avoid that.
    - huntedsnark 9y ago
      > just plain censorship Who are they censoring, themselves? The word "Censorship" has been so abused in the past few years it has ceased to have any real meaning in casual conversation. You can read their rationale for removing it rather than updating it here: https://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2018/04/12/601650762/npr-issues-rare-retraction https://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2018/04/12/601650762/... > 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."
    - burntwater 9y ago
      > What is published must not be purged. Why? Why must everything automatically stay in perpetuity? NPR owns the story. They paid to write it, they chose to publish it, they paid to put it online. The story is theirs. Why can't they do whatever they want with it?
  - vormalpg 9y ago
    Yet, it apparently did meet their standards of reported evidence a couple weeks ago. That means they owe a detailed explanation of what exactly changed in that time (some info has been given by the ombudsman) and how the failure will be prevented in the future. The original article should not be removed under any circumstances because it serves as part of the reporting record of NPR. For people to form accurate conclusions about the veracity of news sources, their failings must not be buried from view.
jbob2000 9y ago
My criticism is that news orgs shoot first and ask questions later. Even the news orgs we hold in very high regard (NPR) do it. To me, that means it's a systemic problem with the profession. They need to operate more like the justice system; you should be absolutely sure of the facts before you publish them. Yes, that means good stories sometimes won't be published, just like the justice system is sometimes unable to convict people even though they "did it".
- bdcravens 9y ago
  > My criticism is that news orgs shoot first and ask questions later. Even the news orgs we hold in very high regard (NPR) do it. To me, that means it's a systemic problem with the profession. I don't have an answer, but I think news org are functioning in a world that demands the following: 1. We want news fast 2. We want news free 3. We want news free of ads
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago
  > My criticism is that news orgs shoot first and ask questions later. That's a gross generalization. > Even the news orgs we hold in very high regard (NPR) do it. Source? > They need to operate more like the justice system; you should be absolutely sure of the facts before you publish them. One should never use absolutes as there are exceptions to nearly everything.