5 ms·
Removing 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.
by scott_s 9y ago
Removing 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 9y 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 9y agoMaybe they are in the midst of such. It would be a good story.
- bamboo_7 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y agoBut they published it. They should not remove it. Publish a correction. Removal is not acceptable.
- danso 9y agoWhy not?
- mieseratte 9y agoKnowledge is power! By presenting us the full-picture, we can potentially guard ourselves in the future.
- danso 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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.