4 ms·
No, no that’s not how journalism works. They report the FACTS as they see them. /s There’s no such thing as a retraction anymore, it’s just clarifications. I w
by underseacables 6y ago
No, no that’s not how journalism works. They report the FACTS as they see them. /s
There’s no such thing as a retraction anymore, it’s just clarifications. I would have more faith in the media if they admitted when they were wrong, or at least presented, thoughtfully considered, opposing viewpoints. My faith in the media perhaps really took its first hit with Nick Sandman. I just felt weird that all these people were coming down on a kid. The level of vitriol was disturbing, and many it seems were wrong. I expect CNN to say so, but I don’t think they will, and thus the conflict remains unresolved.
- tablespoon 6y ago> There’s no such thing as a retraction anymore, it’s just clarifications. I think journalism always mostly did "corrections." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper)
- underseacables 6y agoAh thank you, quite interesting. Allow me to clarify: when I was riding those words I had an article on a webpage in my mind. Because articles are so online now, it’s easy to change things and call them clarifications, and people miss the slight of hand that it might have been actually a retraction of statements. I do recall clarifications and amplifications in physical newspapers, always intriguing.
- tablespoon 6y ago> Ah thank you, quite interesting. Allow me to clarify: when I was riding those words I had an article on a webpage in my mind. Because articles are so online now, it’s easy to change things and call them clarifications, and people miss the slight of hand that it might have been actually a retraction of statements. For better or worse, online news articles are living documents now. Especially in breaking stories, I've seen them get updated over the day/week with all kinds of things (e.g. corrections, new developments, rewrites, etc.). Ideally they'd expose a revision history like Wikipedia, but that's probably more of a nice-to-have since their editorial processes aren't crowdsourced. I suppose they've embraced some of the "move fast and break things" ethos of tech sector (because you can also fix things fast).
- fouric 6y ago> revision history > nice-to-have I think that explicit changelogs for a journalistic document are actually necessary in order to verify the trustworthiness of the publisher - how else are you going to notice when they start silently "updating" articles that were pushing an extreme (and factually incorrect) narrative at publishing time?
- a9h74j 6y agoJust as "television will eventually be a window in a window manager"... "A newspaper edition will eventually be a repository with good comments on commits"???
- stjohnswarts 6y agoYou won't see "corrections" along the top bar of "news" on the webpages either. It will always be hidden away somewhere obscure unless their misreporting causes public outrage, and then sometimes they'll actually do a proper retraction.
- tablespoon 6y ago> It will always be hidden away somewhere obscure If by "obscure" you mean "on the actual article with the error," sure. But that seems like where the correction note should go.
- dahfizz 6y agoYeah. Anytime "the media" reports about things I personally know about, it becomes obvious how much they get wrong. Too many journalists believe they are on a political crusade. They get enraged by their own stories and actively try to enrage everyone else.
- supercheetah 6y agoEven completely factual reporting can still be biased. Even neutrality is a bias.