Note it took two steps for PG to be mischaracterized: TheInformation's editing and then Valleywag's selective excerpting and misleading headlining. (Too bad there's no Valleywag subscriptions to be cancelled.)

I thought even without the word 'these', the conversational context suggested the topic was relative rates of an activity, or within an implied reference class (potential "but for this one factor" founders/YC-applicants).

It's often possible to clip phrases out of a discussion so that standing alone, they sound unqualified and extreme... when in fact the establishing context, perhaps paragraphs or pages earlier, set limits on what was meant and renders the words reasonable.

Yet, in the modern link/referral/social-news economy there are big rewards for removing context, adding new spin, and sending the result out for amplification (and further modification) by those already primed to express outrage.

Indeed. Especially in light of their response to this article, paraphrased:

"It's not that we were trying to be malicious. It's just that we're incapable of parsing spoken English"

Followed up in a tweet with "To clarify, even after reading several detailed explanations of the spoken English in question, we're still unable to parse it".

So either way, malicious or dim, it's hard to imagine considering them a trustworthy source of news after this.

[Note: some of the above quotes have been edited slightly for compactness and clarity, as is common practice in such things.]

Not to mention their refusal to admit that they shouldn't be changing quotes in the first place.

What made The Information's value proposition so alluring? It seems like an opportunity for another publication to step up and eat their lunch, whatever it was.

I guess their promise of high-quality tech coverage was a welcome change. Seems like a good idea; hopefully someone else will deliver it.

The headlines I've seen on their Twitter feed are very compelling topics that I haven't seen covered anywhere else, e.g. news on what Scott Forstall has been doing since he left Apple. I haven't subscribed so I haven't read them so I can't vouch for the quality.

I get the appeal of a premium service, but what's wrong with ArsTechnica or The Register?

I'm constantly impressed by the quality of these site's articles (although I find The Register difficult to get on with for the same reasons I find Private Eye difficult to get on with).

You "can't imagine"? When posting that, did you yet do the research and determine whether or not Paul Graham threw Jessica Lessin under the bus... common when one feels personally attacked and doesn't think as critically as they should?

What's interesting, at least on this thread, is that people aren't analyzing the raw transcript for themselves: (http://jessicalessin.com/2013/12/31/on-the-information-and-h...) Or did I miss someone doing that, under the weight of all the fluffy, useless rhetoric?

One poster's brief, lucid point about journalistic practices is buried by lots of useless rhetoric. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6989348)

Everyone should know this is true here even on technical topics. People commonly point out a lack of critical thinking on HN, weak at discussing tradeoffs.

Reading the raw transcript, seems to me Paul's comment about "these women" doesn't show him in a better light. But even if you disagree, doing the analysis is important, rather than echo Michael Arrington's and Paul Graham's rhetoric.

I really liked Arrington's post; but most fundamentally, what is the value of the so-called "tech press"?

Like so many things, free press in general is being disintermediated, since "leaks" happen without it, outside of it, and many times despite its best efforts to ignore them.

Still, one can imagine there's value to the business of keeping the government accountable -- if the business gets done.

But in tech? What secrets are there to uncover? As this story shows, the only "secrets" left are those made up by the press to try and justify its existence.

Well, I'd say the biggest reason why I like them is summarization and curation. Without them, it would take way too much time for me to gather and understand what's happening. Seriously. As well, it would take too much time and effort to choose what to focus on. Now we can debate on whether they do that job well, but I'd warrant that they still do it better and more efficiently than I could myself, and same when compared to social media or discussion forums.

Is it really a surprise that The Information is bad journalism? Forgive me for linking to Valleywag, but they don't mince word in describing her concept of journalism--- I'm sorry, "reportrepreneurship": http://valleywag.gawker.com/jessica-lessin-throws-intimate-p....

It's just more of the same tech writing, wrapped in WSJ-like finance reporting.

Well, probably the following could at least help them with reputation: 1. Public apology and explanation how they are going to prevent this in the future 2. Publishing the full transcript of the story free of charge and publicly announcing it 3. Firing the reporter or editor or whoever was responsible for the act of conversion of information into propaganda. If it was Jessica herself then probably there's nothing to save here.

Jessica is guilty. She could have diffused the situation by saying 'We misquoted PG, sorry'.

Instead she tries to justify it and says 'Paul Graham was not misquoted'. Or at least that is what the ValleyWag troll tweeted https://twitter.com/Valleywag/status/417093209886846976

They have published the transcript here:

http://jessicalessin.com/2013/12/31/on-the-information-and-h...

Not they, she did. As a private person. Which is not exactly what I've meant, but definitely better than nothing.

Would a retraction/apology combination be effective here? Or is this just too egregious an error?

I, in turn, feel dumb asking, as I would have liked a subscription to a service like that. I wouldn't want to encourage this sort of nonsense, either.

"We reviewed the transcript again and shared it with Paul. We stand behind our excerpting and editing for clarity. We continue to believe that the quote is in its proper context. Thanks for checking in." http://valleywag.gawker.com/paul-graham-says-women-havent-be...

I wouldn't hold my breath for a retraction/apology. It sounds like they have dug in their heals.

Am I mistaken that this is related to ValleyWag's stance and not The Information?

EDIT: yes, I am clearly mistaken on a second glance. I hadn't actually reached the end of the article's updates (curse browsing on a phone and careless reading).