2 ms·
There's actually a named psychological effect for when people read a news article that they know to be inaccurate and don't believe that lack of standards carry
by busterarm 6y ago
There's actually a named psychological effect for when people read a news article that they know to be inaccurate and don't believe that lack of standards carry forward into the rest of the paper's articles...
Unfortunately both my memory and Google are failing me on this one. Maybe someone in the comments will contribute.
- arp242 6y agoI can't readily find this either, but the New York Times employs 1,700 journalists and publishes about 150 stories every day. I don't think treating it as a big singular monolithic entity is helpful.
- busterarm 6y agoAnd those 1700 journalists and 150 stories per day go through their much smaller editorial board before they get published. There can be costly legal ramifications if they do not have their editors carefully go over stories. Stop giving them excuses.
- arp242 6y agoI'm not excusing anything; I'm just saying that a single bad article from 7 years ago from a single reporter and the newspaper not appropriately rectifying it – which is certainly a very bad thing – is not a good reason to dismiss the entire newspaper out of hand, especially not considering the scale of the NYT. Things are just not that black/white.
- busterarm 6y agoThe UFO article I mentioned was barely a week ago. There's loads of these. I'm half-expecting a bat boy article as a followup.
- mundo 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speeches_by_Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnesiaEffect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speeches_by_Michael_Crichton#G...
- busterarm 6y agoTHAT'S IT! Thank you.