Hacker News Reader

Comment by jlmorton | Hacker News Reader

> Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found.

Your implication is that because a story contains no named sources, the information is not legitimate, or not reliable. I would submit to you that this is exceedingly rare at a reputable newspaper like the New York Times, and although all newspapers are sometimes mislead by their sources, or otherwise get things wrong, when this happens at a paper like the Times, it is universally followed by a correction.

In other words, the Times is not going to print a story based on anonymous submissions without any further vetting, or investigation. They're going to seek independent corroboration, they're going to involve other experts, and they're going to ask questions of the principals.

View on HN

Agreed. That is why this is called a confidential tip line. For a journalist, a "tip" is an indication to investigate something.

> followed by a correction.

This is not useful most of the time. I've never seen a viral correction. Damage is done.

Not OP, just curious why this is being downvoted? Seems like a legitimate argument, would rather like to see the counterargument of the downvoters.

First of all, the premise is wrong. Major corrections usually receive more prominent placement and greater exposure. Minor corrections are printed in the corrections section, with stories updated online and correction notices appended.

Second, the point is not that reputable newspapers perfectly correct their readership's understanding. The point is that reputable newspapers correct themselves. Newspapers reputations are built on that honesty, and astute readers will have an understanding of a paper's track-record of accuracy and corrections. Less astute readers will rely on those that do track such things.

I have not found this to be true.

There is tons of NYT articles that are factually wrong and have never been updated.

Thanks for sharing the link.

I was just going to add that just based on the articles I read (in the NYT and elsewhere) that are within my field of expertise and how wrong they get basic facts, cause and Effect, etc. I don’t think I can trust them with reporting of other domains either.

News outlets across the board have entertainment value at best, nothing else.

If there are "tons that are factually wrong" and have not been corrected, perhaps you link to a few of those examples?

It doesn't matter if they correct it after they've already sold the lie. The damage is done and most people won't read the correction.

After 9/11, New York Times wrote an article about how dangerous Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were. MSM just takes Bush/Obama admin + intelligence communities claims at face value. It is supposed to be their job to fact-check govt, but instead they are just a rubber stamp for govt propaganda. The only admin they have been capable of properly fact-checking is Trump admin and that's only because their corporate sponsors & donors are anti-Trump.

When the intelligence community makes a claim, media fact-checks that claim by asking the SAME intelligence community to verify.

If they aren't willing to put in the work to be trustworthy, there's no reason to give them any trust.

There are lots of things not to like about the Times, but if you report an inaccuracy to them, they will research it and correct it if needed.

I have a suspicion that the mainstream media writers purposely under-resarch their stories so they can get the story out as fast as possible & minimize liability for libel.

Libel laws say that if you write something about someone that you believe COULD be true, it's not libel.

So imagine you are a writer who discovers a sensationalized claim you really want to print. But it could be completely false.

If you fact-check it, and it turns out to be false, now you know it's false. You could be liable for libel if you decide to print it.

However, if you don't fact-check it, you get to print the claim because you sincerely believed it could be true. Also, you get the advantage of getting the story out quicker, and you can always change it later if someone complains.

As it happens, the relevant case law is New York Times Co vs. Sullivan. According to that case, libel liability still applies when the information published is both untrue, and was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

In other words, a policy of publishing without investigation would not limit libel liability. If the information is false, and the publishers did not have a good-faith belief that it is true, then they might still be held liable.

[Citation needed.]

Come on, let's see some examples. Should be easy to find at least a few, since there are "tons" of them.

I did a 10 second google. Here's a couple where the NYT issued their little correction as unobtrusively as possible, which happens often, after they enjoy the click-bait traffic the erroneous story give them.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/30/new-york-tim...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/08/...

Small print corrections issued days later, are not effective in undoing the damage an erroneous blaring headline did.

Absolutely. What happened to investigative journalism? Shoutouts to https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/

Cut through layers of agenda pushers and give me facts.

Why doesn't the source you cite also have agendas? IME, those who attack everyone else as having an agenda and present themselves as the antidote - that act is propaganda in itself and they the most prone to it.

That's an extraordinary claim to make without any evidence. The entire business model of a newspaper is that they report facts.

Their business model is that they sell papers (or access to a website, or get ad views).

They can do this by reporting facts, but generally it is easier to do this by reporting stuff people want to read, which includes facts and non-facts and things that may or may not be factual. This also generally involves summaries which aren't factually true as they drop relevant details, but which are close enough that people tend to tolerate them (see any reporting on a scientific paper ever).

Also, an "an anonymous source said X" could be factual, but the implication is that X has some level of truth when the only known fact is that in reference to that X was said by an anonymous source.

> That's an extraordinary claim to make without any evidence. The entire business model of a newspaper is that they report facts.

You've never regularly read UK newspapers I take it?

I wish that was their primary purpose, a few of them never let a story get in the way of their agenda.

> the Times is not going to print a story based on anonymous submissions without any further vetting, or investigation. They're going to seek independent corroboration

Citation needed.

Here are some counterpoints to your assertion that they would not print a story not independently corroborated.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair

http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/28/media-double-down-after-...

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/columbia-and-new-york-...

http://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=4379 [duke lacrosse reporting]

https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/wrong_wrong_wrong_w...

A great example of the Times and their “anonymous” sources (and lack of corroboration) http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/maybe.htm...

Suggesting that the Times “isn’t going to print a story..without further vetting” is based on some idealistic view of the Times, but not necessarily on a reality based on their history. Didn’t they also just print an anonymous op-ed, providing zero opportunity to challenge or verify any of the claims contained therein?

The Times is a reputable as any other news outlet, but Reuter’s they are not. They are laced with a history of subtle bias and outright dishonesty when it suits them.

I read through the top 3 links and would love to hear you elaborate more on how these are counterpoints to the assertion that the Times would not print a story not independently corroborated.

The first link regarding Jayson Blair is the clearest counterpoint, showing a Times reporter fabricating story. This is absolutely an example of the NYT failing. But the same Wikipedia article says that the NYT, on their own initiative, investigated and fired Jayson Blair in a very public manner.

> After internal investigations, The New York Times reported on Blair's journalistic misdeeds in an "unprecedented"[14] 7,239-word front-page story on May 11, 2003, headlined "Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception."[2] The story called the affair "a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper."

To me, publishing Jayson Blair's articles is a huge mistake by the Times. But the way they handle it proves that they do hold their journalistic values in high regard.

The 2nd article itself admits that what the Times published is supported by many others in the media. (Their point is that the entire media is lying.) The audio proof that the 2nd article mentions is also not included, so I don't know if I should trust it more than I trust the Times.

The 3rd link is not easy to understand for me since there isn't a lot of context.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com