4 ms·

I'm not sure why, but I really enjoyed this piece. I wouldn't have thought that smaller articles, such as restaurant reviews, would go through a fact-check at a

by conroy 7y ago

I'm not sure why, but I really enjoyed this piece. I wouldn't have thought that smaller articles, such as restaurant reviews, would go through a fact-check at an outfit the size of the New Yorker. And yet, it's a good thing it did! Wouldn't want people to think the grasshoppers are fried or that the guac is seasoned with adobo.

reificator 7y ago
Agreed, I really enjoyed it. I only clicked for name recognition, but it could have been an actor I've never heard of and the story would have been just as interesting.
nrev 7y ago
Haha. I mean, you’re obviously not wrong. No less, having written a few articles for publication, it is extremely helpful to have this kind of verification and correction to even the smallest details, and I imagine that is true for article/review subjects too. I’ve read enough (published) restaurant and entertainment reviews with glaringly incorrect information to see the utility for this particular situation. But, generally, this kind of fact checking is extremely time-consuming, and it’s a lot faster to have people who do mostly this kind of thing. Plus, if you have a third party do it, it does at least seem like there would be ethical benefits and also stuff like reduced animosity for people like journalists between writers and subjects when there is an unintentional mismatch (or specifically journalists and sources). That said, I can imagine a wealth of situations in which mandatory fact-checkers seems like and inane and all-around frustrating exercise.
asveikau 7y ago
The idea of Radcliffe calling up a Mexican joint in Brooklyn and introducing himself as "Dan at the New Yorker" - impossible to read without imagining in his accent - is also whimsical.
KuhlMensch 7y ago
Looks like I'm joining 50% of the current commentators, who just wanted to share they felt this was a charmingly written piece!

by conroy 7y ago

reificator 7y ago

Agreed, I really enjoyed it. I only clicked for name recognition, but it could have been an actor I've never heard of and the story would have been just as interesting.

nrev 7y ago

Haha. I mean, you’re obviously not wrong. No less, having written a few articles for publication, it is extremely helpful to have this kind of verification and correction to even the smallest details, and I imagine that is true for article/review subjects too. I’ve read enough (published) restaurant and entertainment reviews with glaringly incorrect information to see the utility for this particular situation. But, generally, this kind of fact checking is extremely time-consuming, and it’s a lot faster to have people who do mostly this kind of thing. Plus, if you have a third party do it, it does at least seem like there would be ethical benefits and also stuff like reduced animosity for people like journalists between writers and subjects when there is an unintentional mismatch (or specifically journalists and sources). That said, I can imagine a wealth of situations in which mandatory fact-checkers seems like and inane and all-around frustrating exercise.

asveikau 7y ago

The idea of Radcliffe calling up a Mexican joint in Brooklyn and introducing himself as "Dan at the New Yorker" - impossible to read without imagining in his accent - is also whimsical.

KuhlMensch 7y ago

Looks like I'm joining 50% of the current commentators, who just wanted to share they felt this was a charmingly written piece!