7 ms·

Would be interesting to see the percentage people who only saw the first headline: https://archive.vn/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/08/gaige-gr

Would be interesting to see the percentage people who only saw the first headline: https://archive.vn/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/08/gaige-grosskreutz-says-he-feared-his-life-before-kyle-rittenhouse-shot-him-during-kenosha-unrest/ https://archive.vn/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/202... “Gaige Grosskreutz says he feared for his life before Kyle Rittenhouse shot him during Kenosha unrest” “Gaige Grosskreutz says he feared for his life, pointed gun at Kyle Rittenhouse before getting shot”

tablespoon 5y ago
>>> Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head >> I've more or less read that fact on NYT though. >> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige-grosskreutz-testimony.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige... > Would be interesting to see the percentage people who only saw the first headline: https://archive.vn/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/08/gaige-grosskreutz-says-he-feared-his-life-before-kyle-rittenhouse-shot-him-during-kenosha-unrest/ https://archive.vn/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/202... What does a Washington Post headline have to do with a New York Times article?
- jbverschoor 5y ago
  Archive is removed?
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Archive is removed? Huh? What does archiving have to do with anything? What seems to have happened is someone is confusing the Washington Post for the New York Times in a way that leaves a misleading impression in this thread. It's like if you're talking about your software engineer friend Denny, and someone responds with a criticism of some software engineer named Eric like he's talking about the same person.
    - potato7890 5y ago
      The parent comment to the subject of my response established the scope of this discussion as including legacy media in general, one comment invoked the NYT, and I can bring up another publication as well. The general point is that there are plenty of subtle ways to present/disseminate new that allows bias to seep through. In this example the WP reported it in the least effective way possible - as an edit to an existing article that most people would never revisit. Even then, they choose to keep the first half of that head line - as opposed to at the forefront presenting a piece of update that will have actual material impact on the case, which to an unbiased/oppositely-biased publication would be a separate headline. Instead, it’s more important that you know Grosskreutz “feared for his life”, which is even more subtly manipulative. Edit: Just to harp on this point of how ridiculous Grosskreutz fearing for his life is as a headline by that point: his friend, who posed for a photo with him together in the hospital, had posted an deleted on facebook a post stating that Grosskreutz had said that his only regret was not emptying his mag into Rittenhouse. And the fact that there has always been video of the incident showing Grosskreutz approaching a downed Rittenhouse and drawing his handgun as he was shot - even before his corroborating admission. And their headline emphasizes that Grosskreutz had feared for his life without mentioning any of the evidence contrary to this narrative. I bring this up to support the argument in the parent comment to the one I responded to, this example betrays a blatant and willful intent to misrepresent the facts on the part of at least this one member of the mainstream media.
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        > The parent comment to the subject of my response established the scope of this discussion as including legacy media in general, one comment invoked the NYT, and I can bring up another publication as well. I suppose you can, but your comment needed a better transition to make it clear what you were doing. The original comment brought CNN's coverage of a topic (in an unverifiable way) to make a general claim that "mainstream media lies, constantly and blatantly." Someone responded that the NYT article is a counterexample to that claim, and you quoted that link but started randomly talking about a Washington Post headline without even mentioning the publication's name, which made it seem like you were talking about the NYT's headline. > In this example the WP reported it in the least effective way possible - as an edit to an existing article that most people would never revisit. What else would you have them do? I see this kind of criticism often, but when I actually think about what would satisfy the critic vs. the other users of the product, it seems like a situation where one users wants the product tailored to their unusual wants in a way that would degrade user experience for the bulk of other users or would require an investment that would be hard to justify, e.g.: 1. Headlining errata on the front page: that would be annoying and take space away from what 99.999% of users are actually looking for (today's news as of now). 2. Featuring errata prominently in the actual article: again, it's annoying because 99.999% of users want to read today's news as of now, not errata. 3. Article version control accessible to the users: relatively expensive, and 99.999% of users don't care and would never use it. Even if they have some internal version, my guess there's all kinds of unpublishable or unpolished stuff in the history that they're now going to have to edit for publication. 4. Issuing corrected articles, keeping the erroneous ones online: now you have different links flying around for more-or-less the same stuff, but the most popular ones are likely the early ones with errors. Even if you put a link to the correction, most people want to read the best version, and the links aren't taking them there. 5. Etc. > I bring this up to support the argument in the parent comment to the one I responded to, this example betrays a blatant and willful intent to misrepresent the facts on the part of at least this one member of the mainstream media. That's obviously false, since the claim is incoherent when applied to your example. If it were true, why would they have bothered to correct the headline? If they had a "blatant and willful intent to misrepresent the facts" wouldn't they have kept the initial headline because it "misrepresented the facts"? In reality, the corrected the headline, which is evidence that they don't indent to "misrepresent the facts."

tablespoon 5y ago

>>> Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head >> I've more or less read that fact on NYT though. >> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige-grosskreutz-testimony.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige... > Would be interesting to see the percentage people who only saw the first headline: https://archive.vn/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/08/gaige-grosskreutz-says-he-feared-his-life-before-kyle-rittenhouse-shot-him-during-kenosha-unrest/ https://archive.vn/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/202... What does a Washington Post headline have to do with a New York Times article?

jbverschoor 5y ago
Archive is removed?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Archive is removed? Huh? What does archiving have to do with anything? What seems to have happened is someone is confusing the Washington Post for the New York Times in a way that leaves a misleading impression in this thread. It's like if you're talking about your software engineer friend Denny, and someone responds with a criticism of some software engineer named Eric like he's talking about the same person.
  - potato7890 5y ago
    The parent comment to the subject of my response established the scope of this discussion as including legacy media in general, one comment invoked the NYT, and I can bring up another publication as well. The general point is that there are plenty of subtle ways to present/disseminate new that allows bias to seep through. In this example the WP reported it in the least effective way possible - as an edit to an existing article that most people would never revisit. Even then, they choose to keep the first half of that head line - as opposed to at the forefront presenting a piece of update that will have actual material impact on the case, which to an unbiased/oppositely-biased publication would be a separate headline. Instead, it’s more important that you know Grosskreutz “feared for his life”, which is even more subtly manipulative. Edit: Just to harp on this point of how ridiculous Grosskreutz fearing for his life is as a headline by that point: his friend, who posed for a photo with him together in the hospital, had posted an deleted on facebook a post stating that Grosskreutz had said that his only regret was not emptying his mag into Rittenhouse. And the fact that there has always been video of the incident showing Grosskreutz approaching a downed Rittenhouse and drawing his handgun as he was shot - even before his corroborating admission. And their headline emphasizes that Grosskreutz had feared for his life without mentioning any of the evidence contrary to this narrative. I bring this up to support the argument in the parent comment to the one I responded to, this example betrays a blatant and willful intent to misrepresent the facts on the part of at least this one member of the mainstream media.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > The parent comment to the subject of my response established the scope of this discussion as including legacy media in general, one comment invoked the NYT, and I can bring up another publication as well. I suppose you can, but your comment needed a better transition to make it clear what you were doing. The original comment brought CNN's coverage of a topic (in an unverifiable way) to make a general claim that "mainstream media lies, constantly and blatantly." Someone responded that the NYT article is a counterexample to that claim, and you quoted that link but started randomly talking about a Washington Post headline without even mentioning the publication's name, which made it seem like you were talking about the NYT's headline. > In this example the WP reported it in the least effective way possible - as an edit to an existing article that most people would never revisit. What else would you have them do? I see this kind of criticism often, but when I actually think about what would satisfy the critic vs. the other users of the product, it seems like a situation where one users wants the product tailored to their unusual wants in a way that would degrade user experience for the bulk of other users or would require an investment that would be hard to justify, e.g.: 1. Headlining errata on the front page: that would be annoying and take space away from what 99.999% of users are actually looking for (today's news as of now). 2. Featuring errata prominently in the actual article: again, it's annoying because 99.999% of users want to read today's news as of now, not errata. 3. Article version control accessible to the users: relatively expensive, and 99.999% of users don't care and would never use it. Even if they have some internal version, my guess there's all kinds of unpublishable or unpolished stuff in the history that they're now going to have to edit for publication. 4. Issuing corrected articles, keeping the erroneous ones online: now you have different links flying around for more-or-less the same stuff, but the most popular ones are likely the early ones with errors. Even if you put a link to the correction, most people want to read the best version, and the links aren't taking them there. 5. Etc. > I bring this up to support the argument in the parent comment to the one I responded to, this example betrays a blatant and willful intent to misrepresent the facts on the part of at least this one member of the mainstream media. That's obviously false, since the claim is incoherent when applied to your example. If it were true, why would they have bothered to correct the headline? If they had a "blatant and willful intent to misrepresent the facts" wouldn't they have kept the initial headline because it "misrepresented the facts"? In reality, the corrected the headline, which is evidence that they don't indent to "misrepresent the facts."