4 ms·
I don’t think it’s done intentionally to make companies look bad. It’s just the inevitable result of two conflicting goals: to reach out for comment from the su
by mikeash 8y ago
I don’t think it’s done intentionally to make companies look bad. It’s just the inevitable result of two conflicting goals: to reach out for comment from the subject of the article, and to publish as quickly as possible.
- acdha 8y agoArsTechnica also does this routinely and they often post substantial updates (e.g. updating the title, bumping it back up on the homepage) once they get a response, so I’m really skeptical of claims that this is anything other than the balance you described.
- manicdee 8y agoWho's going to read the article in two days time when it's been corrected based on "new information" to say that all the claims are complete fabrications?
- mikeash 8y agoEveryone who looks at their front page, apparently.
- manicdee 8y agoOnly if you are in the habit of rereading articles. Nothing on the front page suggests the article has been updated. Damage done, Ars moves on to the next clickbait.
- mikeash 8y agoWouldn’t the updated title suggest that?
- manicdee 8y agoNothing on the front page suggests that anything has been updated. Title is still “Ex-SolarCity employees: We were fired after reporting millions in fake sales.”
- acdha 8y agoThat headline is still a literal statement of fact even if that triggers the emotional reaction which inspired you to donate your PR skills pro bono. The article clearly explained that these were claims made in a lawsuit brought by former employees and anyone who passed a civics class knows that someone can claim anything but you should wait to see what’s upheld in court.
- manicdee 8y agoHow do I know that the story has been updated since I read it? Am I supposed to read every story every day to make sure that I see future updates?
- mikeash 8y agoDid Tesla get back to them, and did the story change?
- manicdee 8y agoHow do I know that a story I read yesterday has changed? Am I supposed to go back and read stories like this every day for some indefinite period?
- kashyapc 8y agoThat "reaching out" habit out of instinct should be curbed. I realize it's the game of journalism -- "we should report it first!" But just because the journalist's business model requires to "publish as quickly as possible", they shouldn't pressure companies, who already have to deal with mountains of crap. (Not that I'm the "fondness for large, opaque corporations" kind; just trying to think fairly where it deserves to be.)
- rootusrootus 8y agoOn the flip side, why do we need a comment from the company anyway? Assuming the journalist has sources for what they are writing, the 'official company PR response' is next to worthless. At this point I think journalists only bother contacting the company as a formality to try and defend against claims of bias.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]