6 ms·

I have not found this to be true. There is tons of NYT articles that are factually wrong and have never been updated.

rubidium 8y ago
Agreed. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect
- rock_hard 8y ago
  Thanks for sharing the link. I was just going to add that just based on the articles I read (in the NYT and elsewhere) that are within my field of expertise and how wrong they get basic facts, cause and Effect, etc. I don’t think I can trust them with reporting of other domains either. News outlets across the board have entertainment value at best, nothing else.
jlmorton 8y ago
If there are "tons that are factually wrong" and have not been corrected, perhaps you link to a few of those examples?
- mdex 8y ago
  It doesn't matter if they correct it after they've already sold the lie. The damage is done and most people won't read the correction. After 9/11, New York Times wrote an article about how dangerous Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were. MSM just takes Bush/Obama admin + intelligence communities claims at face value. It is supposed to be their job to fact-check govt, but instead they are just a rubber stamp for govt propaganda. The only admin they have been capable of properly fact-checking is Trump admin and that's only because their corporate sponsors & donors are anti-Trump. When the intelligence community makes a claim, media fact-checks that claim by asking the SAME intelligence community to verify. If they aren't willing to put in the work to be trustworthy, there's no reason to give them any trust.
bwanab 8y ago
There are lots of things not to like about the Times, but if you report an inaccuracy to them, they will research it and correct it if needed.
- mdex 8y ago
  I have a suspicion that the mainstream media writers purposely under-resarch their stories so they can get the story out as fast as possible & minimize liability for libel. Libel laws say that if you write something about someone that you believe COULD be true, it's not libel. So imagine you are a writer who discovers a sensationalized claim you really want to print. But it could be completely false. If you fact-check it, and it turns out to be false, now you know it's false. You could be liable for libel if you decide to print it. However, if you don't fact-check it, you get to print the claim because you sincerely believed it could be true. Also, you get the advantage of getting the story out quicker, and you can always change it later if someone complains.
  - jlmorton 8y ago
    As it happens, the relevant case law is New York Times Co vs. Sullivan. According to that case, libel liability still applies when the information published is both untrue, and was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, a policy of publishing without investigation would not limit libel liability. If the information is false, and the publishers did not have a good-faith belief that it is true, then they might still be held liable.
enraged_camel 8y ago
[Citation needed.] Come on, let's see some examples. Should be easy to find at least a few, since there are "tons" of them.
- robotrout 8y ago
  I did a 10 second google. Here's a couple where the NYT issued their little correction as unobtrusively as possible, which happens often, after they enjoy the click-bait traffic the erroneous story give them. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/30/new-york-times-issues-correction-on-trump-rally-crowd-size-after-overlooking-4500-attendees.html http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/30/new-york-tim... https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/08/09/new-york-times-guilty-of-large-screw-up-on-climate-change-story/?utm_term=.2c239102a3f5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/08/... Small print corrections issued days later, are not effective in undoing the damage an erroneous blaring headline did.
YinglingLight 8y ago
Absolutely. What happened to investigative journalism? Shoutouts to https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/ https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/ Cut through layers of agenda pushers and give me facts.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- forapurpose 8y ago
  Why doesn't the source you cite also have agendas? IME, those who attack everyone else as having an agenda and present themselves as the antidote - that act is propaganda in itself and they the most prone to it.
jumelles 8y ago
That's an extraordinary claim to make without any evidence. The entire business model of a newspaper is that they report facts.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  Their business model is that they sell papers (or access to a website, or get ad views). They can do this by reporting facts, but generally it is easier to do this by reporting stuff people want to read, which includes facts and non-facts and things that may or may not be factual. This also generally involves summaries which aren't factually true as they drop relevant details, but which are close enough that people tend to tolerate them (see any reporting on a scientific paper ever). Also, an "an anonymous source said X" could be factual, but the implication is that X has some level of truth when the only known fact is that in reference to that X was said by an anonymous source.
- noir_lord 8y ago
  > That's an extraordinary claim to make without any evidence. The entire business model of a newspaper is that they report facts. You've never regularly read UK newspapers I take it? I wish that was their primary purpose, a few of them never let a story get in the way of their agenda.

Agreed. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

rock_hard 8y ago
Thanks for sharing the link. I was just going to add that just based on the articles I read (in the NYT and elsewhere) that are within my field of expertise and how wrong they get basic facts, cause and Effect, etc. I don’t think I can trust them with reporting of other domains either. News outlets across the board have entertainment value at best, nothing else.

jlmorton 8y ago

If there are "tons that are factually wrong" and have not been corrected, perhaps you link to a few of those examples?

mdex 8y ago
It doesn't matter if they correct it after they've already sold the lie. The damage is done and most people won't read the correction. After 9/11, New York Times wrote an article about how dangerous Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were. MSM just takes Bush/Obama admin + intelligence communities claims at face value. It is supposed to be their job to fact-check govt, but instead they are just a rubber stamp for govt propaganda. The only admin they have been capable of properly fact-checking is Trump admin and that's only because their corporate sponsors & donors are anti-Trump. When the intelligence community makes a claim, media fact-checks that claim by asking the SAME intelligence community to verify. If they aren't willing to put in the work to be trustworthy, there's no reason to give them any trust.

bwanab 8y ago

There are lots of things not to like about the Times, but if you report an inaccuracy to them, they will research it and correct it if needed.

mdex 8y ago
I have a suspicion that the mainstream media writers purposely under-resarch their stories so they can get the story out as fast as possible & minimize liability for libel. Libel laws say that if you write something about someone that you believe COULD be true, it's not libel. So imagine you are a writer who discovers a sensationalized claim you really want to print. But it could be completely false. If you fact-check it, and it turns out to be false, now you know it's false. You could be liable for libel if you decide to print it. However, if you don't fact-check it, you get to print the claim because you sincerely believed it could be true. Also, you get the advantage of getting the story out quicker, and you can always change it later if someone complains.
- jlmorton 8y ago
  As it happens, the relevant case law is New York Times Co vs. Sullivan. According to that case, libel liability still applies when the information published is both untrue, and was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, a policy of publishing without investigation would not limit libel liability. If the information is false, and the publishers did not have a good-faith belief that it is true, then they might still be held liable.

enraged_camel 8y ago

[Citation needed.] Come on, let's see some examples. Should be easy to find at least a few, since there are "tons" of them.

robotrout 8y ago
I did a 10 second google. Here's a couple where the NYT issued their little correction as unobtrusively as possible, which happens often, after they enjoy the click-bait traffic the erroneous story give them. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/30/new-york-times-issues-correction-on-trump-rally-crowd-size-after-overlooking-4500-attendees.html http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/30/new-york-tim... https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/08/09/new-york-times-guilty-of-large-screw-up-on-climate-change-story/?utm_term=.2c239102a3f5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/08/... Small print corrections issued days later, are not effective in undoing the damage an erroneous blaring headline did.

YinglingLight 8y ago

Absolutely. What happened to investigative journalism? Shoutouts to https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/ https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/ Cut through layers of agenda pushers and give me facts.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
forapurpose 8y ago
Why doesn't the source you cite also have agendas? IME, those who attack everyone else as having an agenda and present themselves as the antidote - that act is propaganda in itself and they the most prone to it.

jumelles 8y ago

That's an extraordinary claim to make without any evidence. The entire business model of a newspaper is that they report facts.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
Their business model is that they sell papers (or access to a website, or get ad views). They can do this by reporting facts, but generally it is easier to do this by reporting stuff people want to read, which includes facts and non-facts and things that may or may not be factual. This also generally involves summaries which aren't factually true as they drop relevant details, but which are close enough that people tend to tolerate them (see any reporting on a scientific paper ever). Also, an "an anonymous source said X" could be factual, but the implication is that X has some level of truth when the only known fact is that in reference to that X was said by an anonymous source.
noir_lord 8y ago
> That's an extraordinary claim to make without any evidence. The entire business model of a newspaper is that they report facts. You've never regularly read UK newspapers I take it? I wish that was their primary purpose, a few of them never let a story get in the way of their agenda.