> “I don’t think it veered into opinion,” Mr. Isaac said. “It was analysis, backed up by reporting, and written under tight deadline.” He’s probably right.
The piece opens up by lamenting the similarites between facts and opinions and then sidesteps the issue by calling their opinions "analysis". Clever.
Does a comment on this article truly need to be substantive? They took a very reasonable article which was respectful to both Ellen Pao and the Reddit community, and completely rewrote it as an opinion piece.
Now they're defending that course of action while pretending to be concerned about it.
I think this can accurately be described as "weaseling". I think it's taking place because people are starting to notice what happens to these articles, which may soon prove dire to the business they've built on these practices.
In other words: "Watch the weasels dance: the jig is almost up.", go read a writing style guide and they'll tell you to cut unnecessary verbiage.
> Does a comment on this article truly need to be substantive?
Yes. Just because an article is lame doesn't mean the thread should be.
(By the way, please don't go on about downvoting in HN comments—that's so invariably lame that it has not one but two guidelines against it. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Appropriately enough, they're at the bottom.)
I thought what was particularly problematic about rewriting that piece was that the URL didn't change and people had already linked to it, and implicitly or explicitly approved of the contents of that URL. When it morphed from a news piece to an opinion piece, people who followed 'old' links were cheated because they were not told that they were seeing a story entirely different from what the referrer had seen. This problem isn't addressed in the article, and it seems to outweigh any "cumbersomeness" of putting in a little note saying that a piece has changed significantly.
This is a general problem with the World Wide Web. There is no guarantee that the content of a particular URL will remain the same over time, or even that two different users will see the same content at a given URL at the same time. The only way to fix this would be with a content-addressable-store, and that has its own problems (e.g. you can't fix legitimate errors, like typos).
> There is no guarantee that the content of a particular URL will remain the same over time
I don't need or want a guarantee. I expect content to change over time. That's fine.
What I also expect is that the content provider understands the value of preserving previous versions and makes those available. Wikipedia does this well. The entire software suite is designed around this principle.
It is also trivial to implement.
Which leads to the conclusion that those who don't do it are doing so consciously and should be criticized for doing so.
> What I also expect is that the content provider understands the value of preserving previous versions and makes those available. Wikipedia does this well. The entire software suite is designed around this principle.
Wikipedia does it well for text. Not so well for images. There are many articles with important information in images where viewing an older version of the article shows images incorrect for that version.
For instance, the article on same-sex marriage in the US [1] has for quite a while included a map showing the status of same-sex marriage in each state. When the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, the map was updated to reflect this--by overwriting the image file.
If you go back and view that page from a several months ago, well before the Supreme Court's ruling, the map will show same-sex marriage as legal in all states.
> There is no guarantee that the content of a particular URL will remain the same over time
Shortly after the article in question was first published I read it and sent it to a friend I knew would be interested. By the time he got around to seeing/reading it (later that night) the article had drastically changed - which I didn't realize until the next day (when reading a post on HN discussing the changes). In addition to emailing my friend I had shared it on Twitter and Facebook. After reading the updated article that is not one I would have sent to my friend or shared (I ended up deleting the tweet and FB post after reading the "new" article).
I don't think anyone expects some "guarantee" content will not change - but when you link to an article from a reputable source you don't expect it to change to the magnitude this one did.
When I share an article (by any means) I'm saying "hey, here's an article I think other people should read" - there shouldn't be a need to go back hours later to make sure that implicit statement is still true.
A name-addressable system where the names refer to content addresses might give us the best of both worlds. The New York Times could update a URL as much as they want, and browsers would have a UI that lets users access older revisions and be notified when significant changes have occurred.
Both IPFS and Ethereum's Swarm would be good platforms for this sort of system.
That's unlikely to be correct. Whatever your measurement, the average could easily be skewed towards one part of the population. E.g. including or excluding Bill Gates and other billionaires will change the average wealth.
Huh? The likelyhood that an average comes out to divide a population exactly 50/50 seems low. You'd expect it to be off by a point or two, at least. I'm just pointing out that your statement that 50% of X are below average is not usually true. Unless you meant at least 50%. In which case it's a: misleading, B: still wrong.
Only kind of. It's not an apology, nor is it atttempting to be one. It's a statement that they heard the comments, considered the issue, and concluded that they continue to be mostly fine with their approach. A few things they straightforwardly admitted fault for ("Certainly, the headline went too far..."). A few things they say they'll keep under consideration. Many things they defend.
That's a far more useful and respectable thing to hear than a mealy-mouthed apology.
But then they didn't go back and edit the things they admitted fault for, yet the excuse for making the faults in the first place, is them reserving the right to edit the story.
Yeah but this is the NYTimes which has become more about agenda than facts with regards to how women and what occurs to them is portrayed. Combine that with a new certainty that a woman will lead the Democratic nomination and we are facing down years of this. This is how news and politics go bad, they focus on identity than facts. By focusing on the identity of those involved stories will only play out one way as the story was written before it was known.
Horrible article and they really need to have rules in place so that if an article substantially changes the url changes. Rules such as losing or adding a paragraph should suffice as to when a new url is needed. Not changing the url is fine when corrections are made and noted as such
I'll remember this approach next time I get caught doing something. Vaugely admit that I might have done something wrong and weakly promise that I could probably do better in the future.
This is a nuanced, practiced approach towards ethics in journalism. There are a couple of things I disagree with, but I do agree that there is a place for the Times and other major outlets to do reporting that includes analysis in addition to bare facts, and it makes for a better story. (All reporting includes some sort of analysis, if only through which facts are reported or considered relevant to a story, and which aren't.) I definitely appreciate that the Times recognizes that as part of their mission and is not backing down from it simply because it's worried about readers disagreeing with its analysis.
I would love to see more mainstream consumer discussion ethics in journalism that avoids the fundamentalism of a certain group that has taken up the cause of late. There's a lot to talk about there and a lot of different, legitimate, priorities that can lead to different conclusions. It's an important subject with a lot of depth. Maybe we're ready for that conversation: there's the whole Gawker thing, for instance, and there are many levels to that story (like unionization). Like all complex systems, there's no easy answer.
As a former freelance writer and watcher of the media, I've been watching media pundits talk about ethics in journalism for a long time.
I really wish this wasn't the case, but the fact of the matter is that "providing analysis" and "speaking to a pre-existing narrative" are slippery enough terms that you can drive a truck through them. It's much more workable as a media consumer just to assume bias and deal with it. This odd dance we've become stuck performing where the MSM pretends to not be human and operating from some imagined place of total objectivity is not sustainable.
I like the NYT -- given that, well, it's the NYT. Same goes for a lot of other media outlets. I think the problem here is the facade we build around the media, the folks themselves are talented and do a good job. It's the framework we stick them in that sucks.
Part of the problem with the Times nowadays isn't just their "value add" strategy of embedding analysis in news articles, but rather how predictable their politics are every..single..time. Even for people with matching personal politics I think it is frustrating to see such a homogeneous, non diverse perspective. It seems forced and I feel like in their eagerness to abandon "commodity news" they are entering a sort of downward spiral in terms of reputation and quality.
Kind of reminds me when they intentionally drove around in circles in a parking lot and cranked up the heat to try to kill a Tesla then lied about it and were caught. When did the NYT become gawker level link baiters instead of reporters?
My favorite part about this article is
"
Ms. Tam said that, in hindsight, “there was probably more we could have included about Ms. Pao and some of her missteps at Reddit.” Mr. Isaac agreed: “I wish I had included other reasons behind Ellen’s ouster.” Those angles have been covered in many other Times stories, both noted.
"
I read this as "In hindsight, we could have re-edited the article we already continually edit but we wont." (because doing that now would somehow be wrong?)
Framing clickbait as "value-added content" is really beyond the pale.
I was expecting the usual noncommittal response, and I think it's hilarious there is not even a mention here of using technology to show changes while the NYT tells everyone that will listen that they are now embracing the web and all that stuff. Turns out it is all just talk when the people producing the news at the end of the day don't change.
Mixed feelings. On the one hand, the people who complained most loudly about this article rewrite should probably examine their motivations. Because I doubt there would have been this level of scrutiny if not for an ugly undercurrent of anti-feminism.
On the other hand, the article deviated so far from the original just-the-facts version, and the "analysis" was so one-dimensional, that it felt like it veered into Fox-News-for-liberals territory. Which should not be worthy of a pre-eminent news publication.
Perhaps "analysis" at a serious news publication should simply not be written hastily just for the sake of mass click appeal.
At any rate, it doesn't seem like it would have been that hard to throw some opinion piece links or an analysis piece link in the suggested/related section.
This is silly. NY Times is "the paper of record." The blackline of this article shows the entire piece was re-written. They did this as part of an experiment in "propogating" viral content. But "propogating propoganda"like this expressly at odds with being the "paper of record".
Not sure why you're so quick to jump to the conclusion that there's a conspiracy, but comments appear when people write them. And I'm looking at a whopping score of 3 on my end. Such coordination! Many conspiracy!
HN users aren't allowed to make baseless accusations of abuse against other commenters. If you have a suspicion of abuse, please email us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can look into it.
I'm going to detach this subthread and mark it off-topic.
What's galling about the notice that it's "cumbersome" to leave a note about changes is how widespread the practice is at other publications. I used to write for Wired and if there was a minor change, say mispelling someone's name in the story, we'd add a note to the footer highlighting the change. Same with Slate, a well respected news outlet that will add a footer for minor changes. When rewriting the story wholesale it doesn't seem a stretch to leave a footer, or at least a timestamp that highlights when a story is "complete."
Could Wired show a version number with a story? Click it and one could see the various changes publicly published online. Perhaps diffs and comments, like any version control system. It seems one could do much more online than the limited footnote or corrections page we get with print.
43 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 81.3 ms ] threadThe piece opens up by lamenting the similarites between facts and opinions and then sidesteps the issue by calling their opinions "analysis". Clever.
INB4 1000 downvotes from intolerant agenda pushers, sorry you have to read this in grey on grey, it's not my choice.
Now they're defending that course of action while pretending to be concerned about it. I think this can accurately be described as "weaseling". I think it's taking place because people are starting to notice what happens to these articles, which may soon prove dire to the business they've built on these practices.
In other words: "Watch the weasels dance: the jig is almost up.", go read a writing style guide and they'll tell you to cut unnecessary verbiage.
Yes. Just because an article is lame doesn't mean the thread should be.
(By the way, please don't go on about downvoting in HN comments—that's so invariably lame that it has not one but two guidelines against it. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Appropriately enough, they're at the bottom.)
I don't need or want a guarantee. I expect content to change over time. That's fine.
What I also expect is that the content provider understands the value of preserving previous versions and makes those available. Wikipedia does this well. The entire software suite is designed around this principle.
It is also trivial to implement.
Which leads to the conclusion that those who don't do it are doing so consciously and should be criticized for doing so.
Wikipedia does it well for text. Not so well for images. There are many articles with important information in images where viewing an older version of the article shows images incorrect for that version.
For instance, the article on same-sex marriage in the US [1] has for quite a while included a map showing the status of same-sex marriage in each state. When the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, the map was updated to reflect this--by overwriting the image file.
If you go back and view that page from a several months ago, well before the Supreme Court's ruling, the map will show same-sex marriage as legal in all states.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Unite...
Shortly after the article in question was first published I read it and sent it to a friend I knew would be interested. By the time he got around to seeing/reading it (later that night) the article had drastically changed - which I didn't realize until the next day (when reading a post on HN discussing the changes). In addition to emailing my friend I had shared it on Twitter and Facebook. After reading the updated article that is not one I would have sent to my friend or shared (I ended up deleting the tweet and FB post after reading the "new" article).
I don't think anyone expects some "guarantee" content will not change - but when you link to an article from a reputable source you don't expect it to change to the magnitude this one did.
When I share an article (by any means) I'm saying "hey, here's an article I think other people should read" - there shouldn't be a need to go back hours later to make sure that implicit statement is still true.
Both IPFS and Ethereum's Swarm would be good platforms for this sort of system.
The original uses shorthand "~=" for coarse equality, in lieu of {option+x}.
That's a far more useful and respectable thing to hear than a mealy-mouthed apology.
http://newsdiffs.org/diff/934341/934454/www.nytimes.com/2015...
It reads like a different article entirely.
This is a shame, because the original article was actually very reasonable, and seems not to have any glaring inaccuracies.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9870347
Horrible article and they really need to have rules in place so that if an article substantially changes the url changes. Rules such as losing or adding a paragraph should suffice as to when a new url is needed. Not changing the url is fine when corrections are made and noted as such
I would love to see more mainstream consumer discussion ethics in journalism that avoids the fundamentalism of a certain group that has taken up the cause of late. There's a lot to talk about there and a lot of different, legitimate, priorities that can lead to different conclusions. It's an important subject with a lot of depth. Maybe we're ready for that conversation: there's the whole Gawker thing, for instance, and there are many levels to that story (like unionization). Like all complex systems, there's no easy answer.
I really wish this wasn't the case, but the fact of the matter is that "providing analysis" and "speaking to a pre-existing narrative" are slippery enough terms that you can drive a truck through them. It's much more workable as a media consumer just to assume bias and deal with it. This odd dance we've become stuck performing where the MSM pretends to not be human and operating from some imagined place of total objectivity is not sustainable.
I like the NYT -- given that, well, it's the NYT. Same goes for a lot of other media outlets. I think the problem here is the facade we build around the media, the folks themselves are talented and do a good job. It's the framework we stick them in that sucks.
I read this as "In hindsight, we could have re-edited the article we already continually edit but we wont." (because doing that now would somehow be wrong?)
The whole thing smells.
I was expecting the usual noncommittal response, and I think it's hilarious there is not even a mention here of using technology to show changes while the NYT tells everyone that will listen that they are now embracing the web and all that stuff. Turns out it is all just talk when the people producing the news at the end of the day don't change.
On the other hand, the article deviated so far from the original just-the-facts version, and the "analysis" was so one-dimensional, that it felt like it veered into Fox-News-for-liberals territory. Which should not be worthy of a pre-eminent news publication.
Perhaps "analysis" at a serious news publication should simply not be written hastily just for the sake of mass click appeal.
At any rate, it doesn't seem like it would have been that hard to throw some opinion piece links or an analysis piece link in the suggested/related section.
This is silly. NY Times is "the paper of record." The blackline of this article shows the entire piece was re-written. They did this as part of an experiment in "propogating" viral content. But "propogating propoganda"like this expressly at odds with being the "paper of record".
I'm going to detach this subthread and mark it off-topic.