- Own their mistakes.
- Correct them.
- And don't use the incidental occurrence of error as a blanket method of discrediting others
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erratum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper)
https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2002/corrections-c...
The New York Times has a dedicated Corrections section:
https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections
At the Washington Post you'll have to search for the string "Correction:" best I can tell:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/?query=%22correcti...
The Post's corrections policy is noted here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/policies-and-standards/#corre...
Where stories are significant, a substantial and highlighted retraction is issued. An example from Rolling Stone: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/a-note-to-...
That was one of several notable 2014 retractons. Newsweek covers several of these: https://www.newsweek.com/faults-our-stories-year-retractions...
Other typical language is "correction" followed by "regrets the error". Sample searches:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22correction%2...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Awashingtonpost.com+%22corre...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Aeconomist.com+%22correction...
Note that online, corrections frequently appear in an updated version of the original article, though they are then noted in an additional comment. As in this NYT example: https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-world-is-f...
Every last mistake and error cannot be corrected or retracted. But serious, responsible, ethical journalism makes a very earnest attempt to correct errors when they are brought to the publication's attention. And not to double-down on insisting on being wrong.
I try to do the same myself. As shown in my HN history: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
In the era where the paper was printed in limited numbers on a fixed schedule, a printed set of corrections was somewhat meaningful, although still inadequate.
Today, it’s just an artifact. Online newspapers including the NYT routinely edit pages without indicating that they have done so, which is not the same as a correction.
There is no reason for a newspaper page not to have an edit history other than to hide errors, or because they just don’t care enough.
I respond:
Corrections: Aug. 21, 2021
Corrections that appeared in print on Saturday, Aug. 21, 2021.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/pageoneplus/corrections-a...
That lists four articles. For yesterday's edition.
Skipping back four days to the 16th, you'll find six corrections listed:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/18/pageoneplus/corrections-a...
It's unclear to me what definitions of "today", "just an artifact", "without indicating", or "not the same as a correction" mean in your usage, but they don't fit the actual facts of the universe I seem to be inhabiting.
In no way does it constitute an honest acknowledgment of error.
Newspapers do not own their mistakes or correct them.
Publishing a dry, hard to use correction log where it is obvious most people won’t see it doesn’t change this.
https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections
https://www.washingtonpost.com/policies-and-standards/#corre...
Repeating a falsehood, regardless of the Bellman's assertion, does not make it true.[1]
You seem to very badly want to believe a thing regardless of its actual existence. This will likely lead to problems for you eventually, if not already.
________________________________
Notes:
Do you think that the corrections log actually undoes the impact on people who read the false report?
Do you think most people check that log to see if the previous articles they read have been corrected?
The claim you made was that they own their mistakes and correct them.
If your argument is that they quietly admit their mistakes somewhere very few people look, then I will agree to that. If you can find me denying that, you can quote me on it.
My claim is that this doesn’t correct the mistake. When you misinform someone, the only way to correct the mistake, is to let that person know, and give them the right information.
The corrections page might have been a good faith effort at doing this in the print era, but it definitely doesn’t work in the digital era.
More importantly, what you are referring to as ‘corrections’ are simply edits they make. That has nothing to do with owning one’s mistakes.
They can easily be wrong about or present something in a distorted way, and that won’t make it into a ‘correction’. I don’t see how you can call this behavior ‘owning one’s mistakes’.
Bear in mind, we are commenting on a post by Piotr Wozniak, who does in fact own his point of view, and explains exactly why he says the things people accuse of being pseudoscience.
> You seem to very badly want to believe a thing regardless of its actual existence. This will likely lead to problems for you eventually, if not already.
It would be better for you to address the argument rather than engaging in ad-hominem. That is the usual guideline around here.
It's not worth your time.
Making a list of corrections that the people who read the incorrect article never see clearly doesn’t correct anything. The damage is done.
It doesn’t matter how many times the word ‘corrections’ is used.
Except that, ya know, it's a correction, so it does correct something. Once again you are intentionally inaccurately or poorly describing something in an effort to drive home your point. I am not going to be engaging with you any further.
> I am not going to be engaging with you any further.
Good.
Though yes, clearly there's something not right here.