4 ms·

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,

by 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!)
    - toufka 11y ago
      Yes, the revision between a quick-take and fleshed out article changes the emphasis of the narrative in the story. No, this is not okay if done without a note that it has been done IF you want to be called a document of record. This statement is irrespective of this particular piece. >The Pao NYT piece never changes the directionality of the concerns it raises. With respect to this particular piece, I was pointing out later revisions that do change the directionality of a particular concept, namely its description of silicon valley. "Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief" becomes "Silicon Valley 2, Ellen Pao 0". "the entrenched sexist culture of Silicon Valley" becomes "the entrenched male-dominated culture of Silicon Valley" becomes "the entrenched sexist culture of Silicon Valley" becomes "the entrenched male-dominated culture of Silicon Valley". That is not just a fleshing out of a narrative, but an editorial flip-flop. Sexist is a particular and egregious charge to lay on an entire culture - an editorial statement. Male-dominated is a fact, separable from the concept of sexist. One can be proven, one cannot. Subjective vs objective. Opinion vs journalism.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        Your best argument that the Times has "flip-flopped" is that they couldn't make up their minds between calling Silicon Valley "sexist" or "male-dominated"? I don't find that argument credible. That doesn't mean I'm right, but it does mean that this is not a profitable line of argument for us. I'll go ahead and assert that both of those constructions mean the same thing.

by toufka 11y ago

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!)
  - toufka 11y ago
    Yes, the revision between a quick-take and fleshed out article changes the emphasis of the narrative in the story. No, this is not okay if done without a note that it has been done IF you want to be called a document of record. This statement is irrespective of this particular piece. >The Pao NYT piece never changes the directionality of the concerns it raises. With respect to this particular piece, I was pointing out later revisions that do change the directionality of a particular concept, namely its description of silicon valley. "Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief" becomes "Silicon Valley 2, Ellen Pao 0". "the entrenched sexist culture of Silicon Valley" becomes "the entrenched male-dominated culture of Silicon Valley" becomes "the entrenched sexist culture of Silicon Valley" becomes "the entrenched male-dominated culture of Silicon Valley". That is not just a fleshing out of a narrative, but an editorial flip-flop. Sexist is a particular and egregious charge to lay on an entire culture - an editorial statement. Male-dominated is a fact, separable from the concept of sexist. One can be proven, one cannot. Subjective vs objective. Opinion vs journalism.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Your best argument that the Times has "flip-flopped" is that they couldn't make up their minds between calling Silicon Valley "sexist" or "male-dominated"? I don't find that argument credible. That doesn't mean I'm right, but it does mean that this is not a profitable line of argument for us. I'll go ahead and assert that both of those constructions mean the same thing.