5 ms·

The headline is factually correct. The contract was made in 2013 between Dr. Obbink and Hobby Lobby Stores, not between him and the museum, which didn't yet exi

by js2 7y ago

The headline is factually correct. The contract was made in 2013 between Dr. Obbink and Hobby Lobby Stores, not between him and the museum, which didn't yet exist. The first sentence of the third paragraph reads: "Thirteen fragments from the collection were found in the Museum of the Bible, a Washington institution founded by Hobby Lobby’s evangelical Christian owners, the Green family." So the headline is correct and the article provides additional details. Also, I don't see what the worth of the texts has anything to do with it. Here's the statement from the EES: https://www.ees.ac.uk/news/professor-obbink-and-missing-ees-papyri https://www.ees.ac.uk/news/professor-obbink-and-missing-ees-... "These texts were taken without authorisation from the EES" is theft regardless of the value of those texts. Edit: if this article has any bias, I don't see it. It is short and filled with facts. I has a dozen links to sources. It implies that the Museum of the Bible could do a better job verifying its acquisitions, but it points out that other museums could too ("Museums in general have faced increased scrutiny over the origins of their prized antiquities"). Unless some facts have been left out, this seems like a good article to me and the type of reporting we should applaud.

romaaeterna 7y ago
Thanks for that link. I'm afraid that events have moved faster than me. The last time I looked into this (6 months ago or so), EES was still standing behind Obbink on the various accusations related to him and Hobby Lobby, which at that point merely involved authenticating papyri sold at auction (the same lot in which the new Sappho was discovered a few years ago). EDIT: I see that Obbink claims that the "documents being used against him" are fraudulent. Whether he means the contract or the EES records is hard to say. https://variantreadings.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/obbink-statement-tweet.jpg https://variantreadings.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/obbink-s...
SkyBelow 7y ago
>The headline is factually correct. Factual correctness is not a defense against being misleading. It is quite easy to make factually correct statements that are also misleading. "$Person has never denied $HorribleAct." "$Person has never apologized for $HorribleAct." "$Person has never presented any evidence showing they didn't do $HorribleAct." You can effectively mad lib these with almost any combinations and it result in a technically true statement. But put a specific case in a news headline, and it would still be considered misleading. Why? Because we know when people read those sentences in a news headline, they will assume that there is an underlying accusation with enough credibility to be denied. Such an accusation doesn't exist. Factually, such a headline never stated such an accusation exists. But we know that is how people will read it, and thus to run such a headline knowing well the way it will be read would, at least to me, qualify as being misleading. Did that happen in this case? I don't know enough to be sure. I just want to point out that factual correctness is not, by itself, enough to disqualify a charge of a headline being misleading.
- JAlexoid 7y ago
  The title is neither misleading, nor incorrect. The professor got accused of illegally selling the documents to Hobby Lobby.
microtherion 7y ago
It would be supremely ironic if one of the fragments being sold contained the 10 commandments…
mbostleman 7y ago
"but it points out that other museums could too" That's the bias right there. There is a broader problem here, but that's not indicated in the headline. Hobby Lobby was specifically targeted in the headline to create emotional engagement. Not the end of the world. Not a vast conspiracy - they need to sell clicks and paper. But not totally honest either.
- TimTheTinker 7y ago
  That's a good point, but astute readers aren't likely to be misled by headlines alone. Unfortunately, headline scanning for confirmation bias of one's current beliefs is rampant. This means (a) biased headlines will get more clicks, and (b) such headlines do constitute a certain lack of honesty in journalism, because of the likelihood that they will mislead many readers.
  - LegitShady 7y ago
    You don't mislead in headlines for astute readers so there isn't a point in discussing that. You mislead in headlines for everyone else.
- js2 7y ago
  It's an article about Hobby Lobby, not a generic article about all museums.

by js2 7y ago

romaaeterna 7y ago

Thanks for that link. I'm afraid that events have moved faster than me. The last time I looked into this (6 months ago or so), EES was still standing behind Obbink on the various accusations related to him and Hobby Lobby, which at that point merely involved authenticating papyri sold at auction (the same lot in which the new Sappho was discovered a few years ago). EDIT: I see that Obbink claims that the "documents being used against him" are fraudulent. Whether he means the contract or the EES records is hard to say. https://variantreadings.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/obbink-statement-tweet.jpg https://variantreadings.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/obbink-s...

SkyBelow 7y ago

>The headline is factually correct. Factual correctness is not a defense against being misleading. It is quite easy to make factually correct statements that are also misleading. "$Person has never denied $HorribleAct." "$Person has never apologized for $HorribleAct." "$Person has never presented any evidence showing they didn't do $HorribleAct." You can effectively mad lib these with almost any combinations and it result in a technically true statement. But put a specific case in a news headline, and it would still be considered misleading. Why? Because we know when people read those sentences in a news headline, they will assume that there is an underlying accusation with enough credibility to be denied. Such an accusation doesn't exist. Factually, such a headline never stated such an accusation exists. But we know that is how people will read it, and thus to run such a headline knowing well the way it will be read would, at least to me, qualify as being misleading. Did that happen in this case? I don't know enough to be sure. I just want to point out that factual correctness is not, by itself, enough to disqualify a charge of a headline being misleading.

JAlexoid 7y ago
The title is neither misleading, nor incorrect. The professor got accused of illegally selling the documents to Hobby Lobby.

microtherion 7y ago

It would be supremely ironic if one of the fragments being sold contained the 10 commandments…

mbostleman 7y ago

"but it points out that other museums could too" That's the bias right there. There is a broader problem here, but that's not indicated in the headline. Hobby Lobby was specifically targeted in the headline to create emotional engagement. Not the end of the world. Not a vast conspiracy - they need to sell clicks and paper. But not totally honest either.

TimTheTinker 7y ago
That's a good point, but astute readers aren't likely to be misled by headlines alone. Unfortunately, headline scanning for confirmation bias of one's current beliefs is rampant. This means (a) biased headlines will get more clicks, and (b) such headlines do constitute a certain lack of honesty in journalism, because of the likelihood that they will mislead many readers.
- LegitShady 7y ago
  You don't mislead in headlines for astute readers so there isn't a point in discussing that. You mislead in headlines for everyone else.
js2 7y ago
It's an article about Hobby Lobby, not a generic article about all museums.