4 ms·

Painting with a big of a broad brush I think. A misquote getting corrected in less than a day and getting noticed by a news site which is frequented by the fol

Painting with a big of a broad brush I think. A misquote getting corrected in less than a day and getting noticed by a news site which is frequented by the folks who would have seen the original misquote seems pretty good to me. IMHO I love the current state of tech press (of which Hacker New's is a big part of for my consumption). I feel its much better than it was 10 years ago.

angrycoder 15y ago
So the bar for quality is so low that it is ok to fuck up and fix it, it just has to be really fast? That isn't how journalism is supposed to work. If any of those bloggers had taken 30 minutes to track down the original quote rather than jumping to be first with an article based in second or third hand information, this situation could have been avoided. I know they are just bloggers. But it is funny that they only want to be called 'just bloggers' when they fuck up and journalists when they want to be taken seriously.
- mindcrime 15y ago
  I know they are just bloggers. But it is funny that they only want to be called 'just bloggers' when they fuck up and journalists when they want to be taken seriously. "Real" journalists make mistakes all the time. Haven't you noticed that just about every newspaper or magazine ever printed had a "corrections" section where they corrected mistakes in previous editions / issues?
  - function_seven 15y ago
    Very very rarely is a correction needed on the central piece of a story, though. If a "real" journalist didn't check this quote before going to press with a piece based solely on it, they'd be in real trouble. It would require a full on retraction and apology, not just a blurb in the Corrections section tomorrow.
    - weaksauce 15y ago
      That's true. Also, real journalists have fact checking departments that are supposed to verify those facts.
      - anamax 15y ago
        > Also, real journalists have fact checking departments that are supposed to verify those facts. However, "fact checking departments" consist of a bunch of folks with no domain expertise, often interns, who do little more than try to find someone who can "verify" what they want to verify. In other words, they're little more than under-paid quote-checkers.
    - reissbaker 15y ago
      Depends on power relations, really. If the journalist and paper aren't likely to get in hot water for it, doesn't happen. For example, U.S. coverage of international news can be pretty bad with misquotes, misattributions, and "accidentally" photoshopped images -- particularly so when the country being covered is primarily non-English-speaking.
Semiapies 15y ago
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Or more to the point, people remember inaccurate stories - they don't remember the corrections.
- TeMPOraL 15y ago
  That's why anti-editorializing rules on HN submission titles are so important. That's why picking a good headline for the article is important. That's (another reason) why I believe that most of the news services are doing a disservice to humanity. We read many more headlines than full articles, and every sensationalistic title that is inaccurate, or a lie if taken out of context, might be another untrue information we learn.

angrycoder 15y ago

So the bar for quality is so low that it is ok to fuck up and fix it, it just has to be really fast? That isn't how journalism is supposed to work. If any of those bloggers had taken 30 minutes to track down the original quote rather than jumping to be first with an article based in second or third hand information, this situation could have been avoided. I know they are just bloggers. But it is funny that they only want to be called 'just bloggers' when they fuck up and journalists when they want to be taken seriously.

mindcrime 15y ago
I know they are just bloggers. But it is funny that they only want to be called 'just bloggers' when they fuck up and journalists when they want to be taken seriously. "Real" journalists make mistakes all the time. Haven't you noticed that just about every newspaper or magazine ever printed had a "corrections" section where they corrected mistakes in previous editions / issues?
- function_seven 15y ago
  Very very rarely is a correction needed on the central piece of a story, though. If a "real" journalist didn't check this quote before going to press with a piece based solely on it, they'd be in real trouble. It would require a full on retraction and apology, not just a blurb in the Corrections section tomorrow.
  - weaksauce 15y ago
    That's true. Also, real journalists have fact checking departments that are supposed to verify those facts.
    - anamax 15y ago
      > Also, real journalists have fact checking departments that are supposed to verify those facts. However, "fact checking departments" consist of a bunch of folks with no domain expertise, often interns, who do little more than try to find someone who can "verify" what they want to verify. In other words, they're little more than under-paid quote-checkers.
  - reissbaker 15y ago
    Depends on power relations, really. If the journalist and paper aren't likely to get in hot water for it, doesn't happen. For example, U.S. coverage of international news can be pretty bad with misquotes, misattributions, and "accidentally" photoshopped images -- particularly so when the country being covered is primarily non-English-speaking.

Semiapies 15y ago

"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Or more to the point, people remember inaccurate stories - they don't remember the corrections.

TeMPOraL 15y ago
That's why anti-editorializing rules on HN submission titles are so important. That's why picking a good headline for the article is important. That's (another reason) why I believe that most of the news services are doing a disservice to humanity. We read many more headlines than full articles, and every sensationalistic title that is inaccurate, or a lie if taken out of context, might be another untrue information we learn.