4 ms·

Can we have all newspapers do this? I imagine few would be as honest as this

collyw 5y ago
Even this seems pretty dishonest, when all the entries are from before the time when many of the Guardian's current staff were not alive.
shipman05 5y ago
The KC Star apologized for its past racist coverage last year: https://www.npr.org/2020/12/22/949271163/the-kc-star-apologies-for-past-racist-coverage-wants-others-to-get-the-poison-ou https://www.npr.org/2020/12/22/949271163/the-kc-star-apologi...
nindalf 5y ago
I imagine many would be, so long as sufficient time had passed. If you’re apologising for a 20 year old mistake, the person who made that mistake probably left the newspaper a while ago. You don’t have to interact awkwardly with them. Nor are they in a position of power from where they can prevent the apology from being printed. The NYT once published a hilarious apology 49 years after they made a mistake. The original author was long gone by then. > A Correction: On Jan. 13, 1920, "Topics of the Times," an editorial-page feature of The New York Times, dismissed the notion that a rocket could function in a vacuum and commented on the ideas of Robert H. Goddard, the rocket pioneer, as follows: > 'That Professor Goddard with his 'chair' in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to something better than a vacuum against which to react—to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools." > Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th Century and it is now definitely established a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error. The only exception I’m aware of personally is the Economist consistently apologising for supporting the Iraq war in the 2000s, and continuing to do so every time the decision to enter the war is mentioned. This from 2018, 15 years after the war started > Iraq, in other words, is doing well. Some will argue that this justifies America’s invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein (which we supported). It does not. Too much blood was shed along the way in Iraq and elsewhere. (https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/03/28/fifteen-years-after-americas-invasion-iraq-is-doing-well https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/03/28/fifteen-years-a...)
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  > 49 years It seems that it took humans landing on a Moon to make them realize rockets can actually work in space.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    There's realising a mistake, and there's finding an appropriate moment to make an unambiguous and highly-visible mea culpa. It seems far more probable that this is a case of the latter, not the former.
- thomond 5y ago
  > Iraq, in other words, is doing well. Some will argue that this justifies America’s invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein (which we supported). It does not. Too much blood was shed along the way in Iraq and elsewhere. That's not an apology, that's disclosure. If they didn't add that you would get a stream of people saying "which you supported" everytime they talk about the war.
  - nindalf 5y ago
    Saying "we were wrong" is an apology in my book. I don't know what you want, but this is sufficient for me. If you think your reading experience would be improved by grovelling, find the publication that grovels or has never ever made a mistake and read that. But for me, I'm ok with the Economist. > If they didn't add that you would get a stream of people A stream of people where? Only subscribers read this. Folks who have issues like you do wouldn't be subscribers to begin with. If they hadn't printed the mea culpa, few would have noticed.
bloak 5y ago
I am constantly seeing references in The Economist to things they've changed their mind about. Often the wording is something like this: It was often claimed (including by this newspapers) that ... However, ...
hntroll888 5y ago
This is not honesty, it's just being delusional. They're not capable of assessing their own blind spots. It's like the guy who shot Lennon writing a memoir in which he reflects sadly that he made a mistake, that he really should have shot Ringo instead, and people applauding his honesty. It's not useful to hear assessments from delusional people about their delusions.
feralimal 5y ago
Amazing. How are they honest? Is there such a thing as honest propaganda? They represent corporate interests with a left wing flavour. They assist in defining the culture and provisioning the views of the liberal masses. In the grander scheme of things, there is really very little if any independent journalism. The current case of covid or climate change are such good examples of this. The science apparently is settled so they have de-platformed dissenting voices, often using the concept of 'hate speech' or mis-information. But that is not science, or at least it shouldn't be - its tyranny. Dissent in science should be commonplace and acceptable - criticism should be countered with evidence, not slap-downs. Newspapers, scientific journals, etc might have been a bastion against the huge weight of fundings from corporate interests. But they themselves are corporate. They cannot provide independent information that is against the corporate agendas. Even when it may seem slightly critical, this is only done for effect. We live in a world of lies unfortunately, that do not correlate with the personal experiences we have.

Even this seems pretty dishonest, when all the entries are from before the time when many of the Guardian's current staff were not alive.

shipman05 5y ago

The KC Star apologized for its past racist coverage last year: https://www.npr.org/2020/12/22/949271163/the-kc-star-apologies-for-past-racist-coverage-wants-others-to-get-the-poison-ou https://www.npr.org/2020/12/22/949271163/the-kc-star-apologi...

nindalf 5y ago

I imagine many would be, so long as sufficient time had passed. If you’re apologising for a 20 year old mistake, the person who made that mistake probably left the newspaper a while ago. You don’t have to interact awkwardly with them. Nor are they in a position of power from where they can prevent the apology from being printed. The NYT once published a hilarious apology 49 years after they made a mistake. The original author was long gone by then. > A Correction: On Jan. 13, 1920, "Topics of the Times," an editorial-page feature of The New York Times, dismissed the notion that a rocket could function in a vacuum and commented on the ideas of Robert H. Goddard, the rocket pioneer, as follows: > 'That Professor Goddard with his 'chair' in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to something better than a vacuum against which to react—to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools." > Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th Century and it is now definitely established a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error. The only exception I’m aware of personally is the Economist consistently apologising for supporting the Iraq war in the 2000s, and continuing to do so every time the decision to enter the war is mentioned. This from 2018, 15 years after the war started > Iraq, in other words, is doing well. Some will argue that this justifies America’s invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein (which we supported). It does not. Too much blood was shed along the way in Iraq and elsewhere. (https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/03/28/fifteen-years-after-americas-invasion-iraq-is-doing-well https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/03/28/fifteen-years-a...)

TeMPOraL 5y ago
> 49 years It seems that it took humans landing on a Moon to make them realize rockets can actually work in space.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  There's realising a mistake, and there's finding an appropriate moment to make an unambiguous and highly-visible mea culpa. It seems far more probable that this is a case of the latter, not the former.
thomond 5y ago
> Iraq, in other words, is doing well. Some will argue that this justifies America’s invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein (which we supported). It does not. Too much blood was shed along the way in Iraq and elsewhere. That's not an apology, that's disclosure. If they didn't add that you would get a stream of people saying "which you supported" everytime they talk about the war.
- nindalf 5y ago
  Saying "we were wrong" is an apology in my book. I don't know what you want, but this is sufficient for me. If you think your reading experience would be improved by grovelling, find the publication that grovels or has never ever made a mistake and read that. But for me, I'm ok with the Economist. > If they didn't add that you would get a stream of people A stream of people where? Only subscribers read this. Folks who have issues like you do wouldn't be subscribers to begin with. If they hadn't printed the mea culpa, few would have noticed.

bloak 5y ago

I am constantly seeing references in The Economist to things they've changed their mind about. Often the wording is something like this: It was often claimed (including by this newspapers) that ... However, ...

hntroll888 5y ago

This is not honesty, it's just being delusional. They're not capable of assessing their own blind spots. It's like the guy who shot Lennon writing a memoir in which he reflects sadly that he made a mistake, that he really should have shot Ringo instead, and people applauding his honesty. It's not useful to hear assessments from delusional people about their delusions.

feralimal 5y ago

Amazing. How are they honest? Is there such a thing as honest propaganda? They represent corporate interests with a left wing flavour. They assist in defining the culture and provisioning the views of the liberal masses. In the grander scheme of things, there is really very little if any independent journalism. The current case of covid or climate change are such good examples of this. The science apparently is settled so they have de-platformed dissenting voices, often using the concept of 'hate speech' or mis-information. But that is not science, or at least it shouldn't be - its tyranny. Dissent in science should be commonplace and acceptable - criticism should be countered with evidence, not slap-downs. Newspapers, scientific journals, etc might have been a bastion against the huge weight of fundings from corporate interests. But they themselves are corporate. They cannot provide independent information that is against the corporate agendas. Even when it may seem slightly critical, this is only done for effect. We live in a world of lies unfortunately, that do not correlate with the personal experiences we have.