4 ms·
The fact that they deleted the original version, rather than added or appended the new one is very telling. People worked on writing and editing it and that wor
by gambler 11y ago
The fact that they deleted the original version, rather than added or appended the new one is very telling. People worked on writing and editing it and that work got thrown away. "Hey, Mike, sorry." Why do you think that is?
You know, in the age of hypertext and search engines you would think that news would become more focused on actual events and facts. (Because anyone who cares could follow the links and do searches to get background information.)
Instead, everyone races to push forward more "analysis" and "context". We get "news" articles that pull in unrelated issues, do everything possible to frame the facts, and use emotionally loaded language wherever possible.
- trop 11y agoThe Times (as of 2008) was explicit that they had two stages for online publication (see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/washington/11askthetimes.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/washington/11askthetimes.h...). The "Continuous News Desk" correspondent quickly write an article, in consultation with reporters. But the final draft of the article -- for print publication -- could be entirely different and with a different byline. I'm wondering if the techraptor reporter is noticing not a conspiracy to editorialize, but rather the difference between the breaking news story (just-the-facts) and a semi-considered story (context).