5 ms·

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 t

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.

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.