3 ms·

This is basic journalistic ethics, to post a log of corrections made to an article.

danso 11y ago
Right...but the implementation details matter. And not everything that is worth tracking is not necessarily a correction. In terms of corrections, for non-trivial ones, it sometimes takes more than a day to get the true story...and this is sensible, as no one wants to correct the correction. This process is pretty manual. In terms of changes, as described by the OP, it's not always clear what kind of changes deserve a manually-written line-item description. Fixing grammar and punctuation? Adding a new quote (usually when a new quote is added, an "Update" note is prepended to the story, but for most WordPress using organizations, this is again a manual process)? Rearranging the lede to put a more important, newly discovered fact up higher? So instead of leaving it to humans to decide which changes are worth manually logging...just let the machine timestamp the changes and show the diffs, allowing the reader to see them in a transparent way. For changes that require no explanation (i.e. the addition of an Oxford comma), let them stand alone. For changes that require some context, such as a new quote, give the option of letting the reporter/editor describe the reason, e.g. "Mr. Smith responded to a reporter's calls at 3 p.m. today".
- Natsu 11y ago
  In this case, the edits were so large, I think they would have been better served with an entirely new follow-up story rather than replacing the original like that.
toufka 11y ago
It's interesting that the log would also reflect internal editorial struggles within the NYT. If you scroll through the future changes since the major change, you see Silicon Valley described "sexist" then "male-dominated" then "sexist" again [1]. Seeing the flip-flopping edits would surely affect how the article (and SV) is perceived beyond the words themselves. [1] http://newsdiffs.org/diff/934591/934616/www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/technology/ellen-pao-reddit-chief-executive-resignation.html http://newsdiffs.org/diff/934591/934616/www.nytimes.com/2015...
- tptacek 11y ago
  The newsroom must be deeply divided on the handsomeness of Omar Sharif, too: http://newsdiffs.org/diff/934092/934104/www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/movies/omar-sharif-a-star-in-dr-zhivago-dies-at-83.html http://newsdiffs.org/diff/934092/934104/www.nytimes.com/2015... You can browse NewsDiffs for all sorts of NYT stories. This story was heavily edited, but it isn't the only heavily edited NYT piece, and there doesn't seem to be an agenda connecting which pieces are heavily edited and which aren't. The more likely cause is that pieces that have to be written in a hurry will tend to get changed the most before their final version hits print.
  - toufka 11y ago
    Those edits regarding Mr. Sharif's handsomeness only go one way though. His description never increases in subjectivity. It's not to say the NYT has an agenda here, but rather that there is division, at least between authors and editors. If the paper wants that division to be opaque, and hierarchical internally, than such real-time edits do it a disservice as they bring into the public those debates. If real-time edits are required to break a fast story, then either 1) they should not break stories quickly and wait to publish until their internal debates have settled - penning only 'news of record', or 2) they really should make those debates part of the public record, and not feign historical steadfastness - a timestamped 'record of news'. But to be a news of record where the record is changed is dishonest.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      The Pao NYT piece never changes the directionality of the concerns it raises. The quick-take piece mentions gender concerns; the final version fleshes them out and, in the process, alarms "TechRaptor" by increasing their emphasis in the story. I can go find other examples of this happening --- of a concern raised in a quick-take being fleshed out, and thus changing the emphasis of the narrative in the story. In fact: I bet I can find a bunch of them, all in the NYT, just by taking a bit of time with NewsDiffs.org. Do you doubt that, or can we just stipulate that this happens all the time? If you doubt it, I'll do the legwork, but I'm going to ask that you stake a $20 bet to charity on it (if I'm right, you donate; if you're right, I do). (Or you can do the legwork yourself!)
tptacek 11y ago
Maybe you should bring that up with Sullivan, their full-time public editor, or the full-time editor they have in charge of managing corrections and clarifications, or that editor's full-time assistant? If it's "basic", I'm sure they'll agree with you.
- PhantomGremlin 11y ago
  While I no longer pay much attention to their editors, previous NY Times public editors and "conservative" columnists have been quite milquetoast. They fully understood the direction of the prevailing political winds. I'm sure those editors pick their battles carefully. I have zero confidence that they are interested in anything but the most egregious of errors or corrections.

danso 11y ago

Right...but the implementation details matter. And not everything that is worth tracking is not necessarily a correction. In terms of corrections, for non-trivial ones, it sometimes takes more than a day to get the true story...and this is sensible, as no one wants to correct the correction. This process is pretty manual. In terms of changes, as described by the OP, it's not always clear what kind of changes deserve a manually-written line-item description. Fixing grammar and punctuation? Adding a new quote (usually when a new quote is added, an "Update" note is prepended to the story, but for most WordPress using organizations, this is again a manual process)? Rearranging the lede to put a more important, newly discovered fact up higher? So instead of leaving it to humans to decide which changes are worth manually logging...just let the machine timestamp the changes and show the diffs, allowing the reader to see them in a transparent way. For changes that require no explanation (i.e. the addition of an Oxford comma), let them stand alone. For changes that require some context, such as a new quote, give the option of letting the reporter/editor describe the reason, e.g. "Mr. Smith responded to a reporter's calls at 3 p.m. today".

Natsu 11y ago
In this case, the edits were so large, I think they would have been better served with an entirely new follow-up story rather than replacing the original like that.

toufka 11y ago

It's interesting that the log would also reflect internal editorial struggles within the NYT. If you scroll through the future changes since the major change, you see Silicon Valley described "sexist" then "male-dominated" then "sexist" again [1]. Seeing the flip-flopping edits would surely affect how the article (and SV) is perceived beyond the words themselves. [1] http://newsdiffs.org/diff/934591/934616/www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/technology/ellen-pao-reddit-chief-executive-resignation.html http://newsdiffs.org/diff/934591/934616/www.nytimes.com/2015...

tptacek 11y ago
The newsroom must be deeply divided on the handsomeness of Omar Sharif, too: http://newsdiffs.org/diff/934092/934104/www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/movies/omar-sharif-a-star-in-dr-zhivago-dies-at-83.html http://newsdiffs.org/diff/934092/934104/www.nytimes.com/2015... You can browse NewsDiffs for all sorts of NYT stories. This story was heavily edited, but it isn't the only heavily edited NYT piece, and there doesn't seem to be an agenda connecting which pieces are heavily edited and which aren't. The more likely cause is that pieces that have to be written in a hurry will tend to get changed the most before their final version hits print.
- toufka 11y ago
  Those edits regarding Mr. Sharif's handsomeness only go one way though. His description never increases in subjectivity. It's not to say the NYT has an agenda here, but rather that there is division, at least between authors and editors. If the paper wants that division to be opaque, and hierarchical internally, than such real-time edits do it a disservice as they bring into the public those debates. If real-time edits are required to break a fast story, then either 1) they should not break stories quickly and wait to publish until their internal debates have settled - penning only 'news of record', or 2) they really should make those debates part of the public record, and not feign historical steadfastness - a timestamped 'record of news'. But to be a news of record where the record is changed is dishonest.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    The Pao NYT piece never changes the directionality of the concerns it raises. The quick-take piece mentions gender concerns; the final version fleshes them out and, in the process, alarms "TechRaptor" by increasing their emphasis in the story. I can go find other examples of this happening --- of a concern raised in a quick-take being fleshed out, and thus changing the emphasis of the narrative in the story. In fact: I bet I can find a bunch of them, all in the NYT, just by taking a bit of time with NewsDiffs.org. Do you doubt that, or can we just stipulate that this happens all the time? If you doubt it, I'll do the legwork, but I'm going to ask that you stake a $20 bet to charity on it (if I'm right, you donate; if you're right, I do). (Or you can do the legwork yourself!)

tptacek 11y ago

Maybe you should bring that up with Sullivan, their full-time public editor, or the full-time editor they have in charge of managing corrections and clarifications, or that editor's full-time assistant? If it's "basic", I'm sure they'll agree with you.

PhantomGremlin 11y ago
While I no longer pay much attention to their editors, previous NY Times public editors and "conservative" columnists have been quite milquetoast. They fully understood the direction of the prevailing political winds. I'm sure those editors pick their battles carefully. I have zero confidence that they are interested in anything but the most egregious of errors or corrections.