I have not found this to be true.
There is tons of NYT articles that are factually wrong and have never been updated.
There is tons of NYT articles that are factually wrong and have never been updated.
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.
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.
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.
Come on, let's see some examples. Should be easy to find at least a few, since there are "tons" of 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.
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.
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.
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.
Cut through layers of agenda pushers and give me facts.