New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’

Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’ by cheezymoogle on Saturday December 19, 2020 @11:58AM (#25478786)

Good on NYT for coming clean, but this is precisely why I don't trust institutions to vet their own product. "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission" is a mission statement for pathological organizations to get away with gambling on the market and socializing their failures.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’ by mellosouls on Saturday December 19, 2020 @12:12PM (#25478942)

Good on NYT for coming clean

They didn't come clean, it's clear from the article they were busted.

They strongly resisted multiple challenges to the obvious problems with his accounts by other writers and organisations culminating in him being arrested for fraud.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’ by ttesttom on Saturday December 19, 2020 @02:31PM (#25480376)

Even if you are busted not all 'news' orgs would come clean, admitting the mistake and detailing out what went wrong.

https://www.npr.org/2017/09/15/551163406/fox-news-has-yet-to...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’ by chrisseaton on Saturday December 19, 2020 @12:14PM (#25478964)

> Good on NYT for coming clean

They got caught - they didn't come clean.

And now they're trying to milk the fact that they were caught to make themselves sound humble.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’ by ehsankia on Saturday December 19, 2020 @03:16PM (#25480788)

I'm sorry but this is such an unfair take. If they were posting corrections like this daily or weekly, then you could argue for EAFP. But your comment implies that they do zero vetting and just publish whatever they want. It completely misses the nuance that "getting permission" isn't a black and white issue. It's a spectrum and you're rarely ever at 100%. You sometimes gotta make the call to publish a story at 95% or so, and in rare occasions it just turns out to not go your way.

You're implying that they should never post a story unless they are 100% certain, which means most stories would never get published, defeating the entire point of journalism. Obviously the threshold needs to be high, you don't want to post every single rumor, but just because they have 1 or 2 correction a year does not mean "they'd rather ask for forgiveness than get permission".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’ by starkd on Saturday December 19, 2020 @12:08PM (#25478898)

They came clean too late for any congratulations.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’ by jimbob45 on Saturday December 19, 2020 @12:04PM (#25478846)

Ombudsmen are typically hired for this reason.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’ by ghaff on Saturday December 19, 2020 @12:10PM (#25478919)

Of course, the NYT got rid of their public editor--i.e. their ombudsman. But I disagree a bit, an ombudsman is more reactive; it's not reasonable for them to vet every story before it's printed. That's the job of the editors and their editors.

This seems a pretty major failing. Of course, they always seem that way after the fact. And TBH a lot of stories run that can't be verified beyond the tiniest shade of a doubt that are substantially accurate.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’ by cheezymoogle on Saturday December 19, 2020 @12:08PM (#25478894)

My only experience with ombudsmen is ignored emails until top stakeholders face the pain, then immediate action to resolve their and only their issues.

[ Parent | on HN ]