Is there value to most breaking news? It's simply a facet of competition between news outlets, most news actually benefits from some delay.

Exactly. I got the "breaking news" from Nitter. Like so many things it seems NYT reporters have leaned into destroying their own profession, by choosing the easy "thin" path of generating news articles by rephrasing tweets and shirking the harder work of analysis of sorting through the firehose.

You're creating a strawman that doesn't exist from the article. There's no ask to be fast and perfect.

The ask was that retractions happen, and that journalists own up to being wrong.

There's evidence provided to show that NYT is very reluctant to backtrack.

> But when you are asking a journalist to report on an event minutes to hours after it happened

I don't ask this. Some push that stuff hard, because it gets ratings, or whatever the equivalent is now that we're a few decades post-broadcast-tv.

Of course, it doesn't get ratings so much as it draws from a bank of integrity that journalism squirreled away through great effort and frustration for over a century, and once they've spent all that, there will be nothing left. Hell, the account's probably been overdrawn for awhile now. And it's as if no one even noticed.