>In this case, I think the resource was looking for just a stock photo.
God forbid they just write their article with no photo at all. Better to use a wrong one apparently.
God forbid they just write their article with no photo at all. Better to use a wrong one apparently.
I think this is hypercritical. If there is a story about some dolphin, if there is a picture of 'any' dolphin to give context, is that then the "wrong one" and suddenly a ding against the newspapers accuracy worthy of running a correct? Particularly when there is a context line stating "this is just a random dolphin to give you an image of a dolphin."
> Better to use a wrong one apparently.
Humans are very visual creatures - in some ways - yes. Even conceding that the picture is the "wrong" one, which again I think is a hypercritical judgment.
basically, not looking good for the future of reliable media
How does one even measure accuracy? Number of corrections might indicate it, but who is to say that all of media is forthcoming with corrections. How does one control for digital vs non-digital distributions? Is the rate of accuracy different per medium, and how would that roll-up for the overall organization?
I think the meta-observation still holds. The response to "media organizations are all inaccurate and this has gotten worse!" - is asymmetric compared to the effort to make the statement. Happily hacker news has a culture where statements are assumed to be opinions (unless otherwise presented with a citation or somethign), and opinions are generally not held to be worth much in this discourse.