5 ms·

Is it normal/expected for a news organization to publish that they fired someone? I’m inclined to take the ‘don’t comment on personnel matters’ at face value.

by jrmg 8mo ago

Is it normal/expected for a news organization to publish that they fired someone? I’m inclined to take the ‘don’t comment on personnel matters’ at face value. They did report on the article quote sourcing debacle at the time - perhaps not as quickly as some would’ve liked, but within a couple of days.

IshKebab 8mo ago
The BBC reports on itself quite well (maybe too much even). Here's an example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly51dzw86wo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly51dzw86wo I think they're an outlier, but still I was disappointed by Ars's response. They deleted the article and didn't detail what was wrong with it at all. Felt like a cover-up.
- buran77 8mo ago
  > They deleted the article This was a big disappointment. I read the original article and the comment from the source highlighting the error, knew what was wrong with it, and still think it was the wrong move to just delete the article and all the original comments, and replace it with an editorial note. This is a kind of cover-up. It's impossible to hide the issue but they went to great lengths to soften the optics and remove the damning content from the public record. They obscured the magnitude of the error. It looks like another "person uses AI and gets some details wrong". What they did so far, the decisions that allowed the issue to occur in the first place (e.g. no editorial review before publishing) and the first reaction to deal with the incident (just destroy the content, article and comments) is everything I need to know about the journalistic principles at ArsTechnica. it's a major loss of trust for me.
- d1sxeyes 8mo ago
  To be completely fair, BBC news is effectively a different organisation which has the BBC name. There's a fairly good overview of it here: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c80l3074mgko https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c80l3074mgko
  - kitd 8mo ago
    BBC News does have to report on itself from time to time. Here's it's "live" feed from November on the Parliamentary Committee investigation into the Trump speech edit incident: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cp34d5ly76lt https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cp34d5ly76lt (edit: technically, it was Panorama. I'm not sure if that is part of the News remit or separate from it).
    - rgblambda 8mo ago
      Panorama is technically part of News. The CEO of News resigned over the trump edit as well as the Director General. Though an independent production company (October Films) produced the documentary, they claim BBC News Panorama team had final say over the editing. The BBC doesn't seem to have ever disputed this.
bayindirh 8mo ago
Yes. Normally, and Ars is generally up to that standard, the editorial staff (or Editor in Chief) updates the article, adds a note about the correction, and further adds that the original author of the article is not working with Ars anymore. It stays as a mark, immortalizing the error, but it's a better scar than deleting and acting like it never happened. I also want to note that, this last incident response is not typical of the Ars I'm used to.
- nerdsniper 8mo ago
  > this last incident response is not typical of the Ars I'm used to. They never really announced Peter Bright leaving ArsTechnica either though. At least not until much much later.
  - bayindirh 8mo ago
    That was a criminal case, though. The court process may have prevented them from talking about it to keep things fair. I'm not a US citizen and IANAL, so YMMV.
    - pavon 8mo ago
      It isn't just Dr Pizza. In recent history (perhaps since being bought by Conde Nast?), when staff left, stories from them simply stopped appearing, and questions about whether they had left or were on a break were met with crickets. The only conformation came when the bio was changed and/or they announced they were hiring or had hired the person replacing them. At least that is what I remember with Sam Machkovech, Ron Amadeo, Cyrus Farivar, Joe Mullin, Andrew Cunningham, Casey Johnston, Jaqui Cheng. And the policy doesn't appear to be limited to people leaving on bad terms since Andrew has since returned, and Cyrus occasionally contributes freelance articles. The last time I remember them announcing a departing staff member is when Ben Kuchera left.
- donohoe 8mo ago
  No. That can happen but it’s not the only path. An article can be retracted. That said, it’s usually noted somewhere else.
g947o 8mo ago
If a news organization publishes an article welcoming someone onboard, they should also do that when someone is fired because of a scandal. Of course, if someone leaves because of personal reasons or jumping ship, there is no reason to do that. But this is different.
- donohoe 8mo ago
  Sorta. Usually they would do a press release or a post on their company blog - not an article. Aside, posting about a new hire is easy and has no legal livability. Posting on a departure can be a tangled web. I do agree that some note by Ars would be good here.
- Hnrobert42 8mo ago
  The complications of HR policy and law do not allow for your proposed solution.
  - g947o 8mo ago
    I have no experience in that area, but it's hard to see how a plain, factual statement "This person is no longer with the company." can be problematic.
    - pavon 8mo ago
      That statement by itself wouldn't warrant an article, and it would be difficult to include a statement like that in a larger article about the event, without implying more than that.

by jrmg 8mo ago

IshKebab 8mo ago

The BBC reports on itself quite well (maybe too much even). Here's an example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly51dzw86wo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly51dzw86wo I think they're an outlier, but still I was disappointed by Ars's response. They deleted the article and didn't detail what was wrong with it at all. Felt like a cover-up.

buran77 8mo ago
> They deleted the article This was a big disappointment. I read the original article and the comment from the source highlighting the error, knew what was wrong with it, and still think it was the wrong move to just delete the article and all the original comments, and replace it with an editorial note. This is a kind of cover-up. It's impossible to hide the issue but they went to great lengths to soften the optics and remove the damning content from the public record. They obscured the magnitude of the error. It looks like another "person uses AI and gets some details wrong". What they did so far, the decisions that allowed the issue to occur in the first place (e.g. no editorial review before publishing) and the first reaction to deal with the incident (just destroy the content, article and comments) is everything I need to know about the journalistic principles at ArsTechnica. it's a major loss of trust for me.
d1sxeyes 8mo ago
To be completely fair, BBC news is effectively a different organisation which has the BBC name. There's a fairly good overview of it here: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c80l3074mgko https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c80l3074mgko
- kitd 8mo ago
  BBC News does have to report on itself from time to time. Here's it's "live" feed from November on the Parliamentary Committee investigation into the Trump speech edit incident: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cp34d5ly76lt https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cp34d5ly76lt (edit: technically, it was Panorama. I'm not sure if that is part of the News remit or separate from it).
  - rgblambda 8mo ago
    Panorama is technically part of News. The CEO of News resigned over the trump edit as well as the Director General. Though an independent production company (October Films) produced the documentary, they claim BBC News Panorama team had final say over the editing. The BBC doesn't seem to have ever disputed this.

bayindirh 8mo ago

Yes. Normally, and Ars is generally up to that standard, the editorial staff (or Editor in Chief) updates the article, adds a note about the correction, and further adds that the original author of the article is not working with Ars anymore. It stays as a mark, immortalizing the error, but it's a better scar than deleting and acting like it never happened. I also want to note that, this last incident response is not typical of the Ars I'm used to.

nerdsniper 8mo ago
> this last incident response is not typical of the Ars I'm used to. They never really announced Peter Bright leaving ArsTechnica either though. At least not until much much later.
- bayindirh 8mo ago
  That was a criminal case, though. The court process may have prevented them from talking about it to keep things fair. I'm not a US citizen and IANAL, so YMMV.
  - pavon 8mo ago
    It isn't just Dr Pizza. In recent history (perhaps since being bought by Conde Nast?), when staff left, stories from them simply stopped appearing, and questions about whether they had left or were on a break were met with crickets. The only conformation came when the bio was changed and/or they announced they were hiring or had hired the person replacing them. At least that is what I remember with Sam Machkovech, Ron Amadeo, Cyrus Farivar, Joe Mullin, Andrew Cunningham, Casey Johnston, Jaqui Cheng. And the policy doesn't appear to be limited to people leaving on bad terms since Andrew has since returned, and Cyrus occasionally contributes freelance articles. The last time I remember them announcing a departing staff member is when Ben Kuchera left.
donohoe 8mo ago
No. That can happen but it’s not the only path. An article can be retracted. That said, it’s usually noted somewhere else.

g947o 8mo ago

If a news organization publishes an article welcoming someone onboard, they should also do that when someone is fired because of a scandal. Of course, if someone leaves because of personal reasons or jumping ship, there is no reason to do that. But this is different.

donohoe 8mo ago
Sorta. Usually they would do a press release or a post on their company blog - not an article. Aside, posting about a new hire is easy and has no legal livability. Posting on a departure can be a tangled web. I do agree that some note by Ars would be good here.
Hnrobert42 8mo ago
The complications of HR policy and law do not allow for your proposed solution.
- g947o 8mo ago
  I have no experience in that area, but it's hard to see how a plain, factual statement "This person is no longer with the company." can be problematic.
  - pavon 8mo ago
    That statement by itself wouldn't warrant an article, and it would be difficult to include a statement like that in a larger article about the event, without implying more than that.