3 ms·

You should expect that. For non-breaking news. But when you are asking a journalist to report on an event minutes to hours after it happened then obviously the

You should expect that. For non-breaking news. But when you are asking a journalist to report on an event minutes to hours after it happened then obviously they will have limited time to validate a claim. Especially in a war-zone where their ability to operate is limited. It's not really possible to be fast and thorough at the same time.

throwaway237289 3y ago
You're creating a strawman that doesn't exist from the article. There's no ask to be fast and perfect. The ask was that retractions happen, and that journalists own up to being wrong. There's evidence provided to show that NYT is very reluctant to backtrack.
Tarq0n 3y ago
Is there value to most breaking news? It's simply a facet of competition between news outlets, most news actually benefits from some delay.
- mindslight 3y ago
  Exactly. I got the "breaking news" from Nitter. Like so many things it seems NYT reporters have leaned into destroying their own profession, by choosing the easy "thin" path of generating news articles by rephrasing tweets and shirking the harder work of analysis of sorting through the firehose. It feels like the Innovator's Dilemma where NYT doesn't want to miss out on being part of people's procrastination/relax loops, and it's cannibalizing their actual value.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> But when you are asking a journalist to report on an event minutes to hours after it happened I don't ask this. Some push that stuff hard, because it gets ratings, or whatever the equivalent is now that we're a few decades post-broadcast-tv. Of course, it doesn't get ratings so much as it draws from a bank of integrity that journalism squirreled away through great effort and frustration for over a century, and once they've spent all that, there will be nothing left. Hell, the account's probably been overdrawn for awhile now. And it's as if no one even noticed.

throwaway237289 3y ago

You're creating a strawman that doesn't exist from the article. There's no ask to be fast and perfect. The ask was that retractions happen, and that journalists own up to being wrong. There's evidence provided to show that NYT is very reluctant to backtrack.

Tarq0n 3y ago

Is there value to most breaking news? It's simply a facet of competition between news outlets, most news actually benefits from some delay.

mindslight 3y ago
Exactly. I got the "breaking news" from Nitter. Like so many things it seems NYT reporters have leaned into destroying their own profession, by choosing the easy "thin" path of generating news articles by rephrasing tweets and shirking the harder work of analysis of sorting through the firehose. It feels like the Innovator's Dilemma where NYT doesn't want to miss out on being part of people's procrastination/relax loops, and it's cannibalizing their actual value.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

> But when you are asking a journalist to report on an event minutes to hours after it happened I don't ask this. Some push that stuff hard, because it gets ratings, or whatever the equivalent is now that we're a few decades post-broadcast-tv. Of course, it doesn't get ratings so much as it draws from a bank of integrity that journalism squirreled away through great effort and frustration for over a century, and once they've spent all that, there will be nothing left. Hell, the account's probably been overdrawn for awhile now. And it's as if no one even noticed.