
Did Reddit Boss Coverage Cross a Line? - leephillips
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/sunday-review/did-reddit-boss-coverage-cross-a-line-ellen-pao.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
======
DominikPeters
I thought what was particularly problematic about rewriting that piece was
that the URL didn't change and people had already linked to it, and implicitly
or explicitly approved of the contents of that URL. When it morphed from a
news piece to an opinion piece, people who followed 'old' links were cheated
because they were not told that they were seeing a story entirely different
from what the referrer had seen. This problem isn't addressed in the article,
and it seems to outweigh any "cumbersomeness" of putting in a little note
saying that a piece has changed significantly.

~~~
lisper
This is a general problem with the World Wide Web. There is no guarantee that
the content of a particular URL will remain the same over time, or even that
two different users will see the same content at a given URL at the same time.
The only way to fix this would be with a content-addressable-store, and that
has its own problems (e.g. you can't fix legitimate errors, like typos).

~~~
maratd
> There is no guarantee that the content of a particular URL will remain the
> same over time

I don't need or want a guarantee. I expect content to change over time. That's
fine.

What I also expect is that the content provider understands the value of
preserving previous versions and makes those available. Wikipedia does this
well. The entire software suite is designed around this principle.

It is also trivial to implement.

Which leads to the conclusion that those who don't do it are doing so
consciously and should be criticized for doing so.

~~~
tzs
> What I also expect is that the content provider understands the value of
> preserving previous versions and makes those available. Wikipedia does this
> well. The entire software suite is designed around this principle.

Wikipedia does it well for text. Not so well for images. There are many
articles with important information in images where viewing an older version
of the article shows images incorrect for that version.

For instance, the article on same-sex marriage in the US [1] has for quite a
while included a map showing the status of same-sex marriage in each state.
When the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, the map was
updated to reflect this--by overwriting the image file.

If you go back and view that page from a several months ago, well before the
Supreme Court's ruling, the map will show same-sex marriage as legal in all
states.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-
sex_marriage_in_the_Unite...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-
sex_marriage_in_the_United_States)

------
kauffj
Check out this diff that shows the before and after of the article:

[http://newsdiffs.org/diff/934341/934454/www.nytimes.com/2015...](http://newsdiffs.org/diff/934341/934454/www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/technology/ellen-
pao-reddit-chief-executive-resignation.html)

It reads like a different article entirely.

~~~
microcolonel
Not only does it read like a different article, it _is_ a different article.
The diff shows that _every line has been completely rewritten!_

This is a shame, because the original article was actually very reasonable,
and seems not to have any glaring inaccuracies.

------
hobs
My favorite part about this article is " Ms. Tam said that, in hindsight,
“there was probably more we could have included about Ms. Pao and some of her
missteps at Reddit.” Mr. Isaac agreed: “I wish I had included other reasons
behind Ellen’s ouster.” Those angles have been covered in many other Times
stories, both noted. "

I read this as "In hindsight, we could have re-edited the article we already
continually edit but we wont." (because doing that now would somehow be
wrong?)

The whole thing smells.

------
lnanek2
Kind of reminds me when they intentionally drove around in circles in a
parking lot and cranked up the heat to try to kill a Tesla then lied about it
and were caught. When did the NYT become gawker level link baiters instead of
reporters?

------
geofft
This is a nuanced, practiced approach towards ethics in journalism. There are
a couple of things I disagree with, but I do agree that there is a place for
the Times and other major outlets to do reporting that includes analysis in
addition to bare facts, and it makes for a better story. (All reporting
includes some sort of analysis, if only through which facts are reported or
considered relevant to a story, and which aren't.) I definitely appreciate
that the Times recognizes that as part of their mission and is not backing
down from it simply because it's worried about readers disagreeing with its
analysis.

I would love to see more mainstream consumer discussion ethics in journalism
that avoids the fundamentalism of a certain group that has taken up the cause
of late. There's a lot to talk about there and a lot of different, legitimate,
priorities that can lead to different conclusions. It's an important subject
with a lot of depth. Maybe we're ready for that conversation: there's the
whole Gawker thing, for instance, and there are many levels to that story
(like unionization). Like all complex systems, there's no easy answer.

~~~
dlandis
Part of the problem with the Times nowadays isn't just their "value add"
strategy of embedding analysis in news articles, but rather how predictable
their politics are every..single..time. Even for people with matching personal
politics I think it is frustrating to see such a homogeneous, non diverse
perspective. It seems forced and I feel like in their eagerness to abandon
"commodity news" they are entering a sort of downward spiral in terms of
reputation and quality.

------
replicatorblog
What's galling about the notice that it's "cumbersome" to leave a note about
changes is how widespread the practice is at other publications. I used to
write for Wired and if there was a minor change, say mispelling someone's name
in the story, we'd add a note to the footer highlighting the change. Same with
Slate, a well respected news outlet that will add a footer for minor changes.
When rewriting the story wholesale it doesn't seem a stretch to leave a
footer, or at least a timestamp that highlights when a story is "complete."

~~~
silverlake
Could Wired show a version number with a story? Click it and one could see the
various changes publicly published online. Perhaps diffs and comments, like
any version control system. It seems one could do much more online than the
limited footnote or corrections page we get with print.

------
michaelwww
I'll remember this approach next time I get caught doing something. Vaugely
admit that I might have done something wrong and weakly promise that I could
probably do better in the future.

~~~
NathanKP
It's tried and true, and worked for both Reddit and the New York Times.

------
feedjoelpie
Mixed feelings. On the one hand, the people who complained most loudly about
this article rewrite should probably examine their motivations. Because I
doubt there would have been this level of scrutiny if not for an ugly
undercurrent of anti-feminism.

On the other hand, the article deviated so far from the original just-the-
facts version, and the "analysis" was so one-dimensional, that it felt like it
veered into Fox-News-for-liberals territory. Which should not be worthy of a
pre-eminent news publication.

Perhaps "analysis" at a serious news publication should simply not be written
hastily just for the sake of mass click appeal.

At any rate, it doesn't seem like it would have been that hard to throw some
opinion piece links or an analysis piece link in the suggested/related
section.

~~~
001sky
_...should probably examine their motivations_

This is silly. NY Times is "the paper of record." The blackline of this
article shows the entire piece was re-written. They did this as part of an
experiment in "propogating" viral content. But "propogating propoganda"like
this expressly at odds with being the "paper of record".

------
shkkmo
oh look, a non-apology that says nothing and promises to do nothing different
in the future.

~~~
geofft
Only kind of. It's _not_ an apology, nor is it atttempting to be one. It's a
statement that they heard the comments, considered the issue, and concluded
that they continue to be mostly fine with their approach. A few things they
straightforwardly admitted fault for ("Certainly, the headline went too
far..."). A few things they say they'll keep under consideration. Many things
they defend.

That's a far more useful and respectable thing to hear than a mealy-mouthed
apology.

~~~
tripzilch
But then they didn't go back and edit the things they admitted fault for, yet
the excuse for making the faults in the first place, is them reserving the
right to edit the story.

------
revelation
Framing clickbait as "value-added content" is really beyond the pale.

I was expecting the usual noncommittal response, and I think it's hilarious
there is not even a mention here of using technology to show changes while the
NYT tells everyone that will listen that they are now embracing the web and
all that stuff. Turns out it is all just talk when the people producing the
news at the end of the day don't change.

------
tzs
There are also a couple comments on the same story from the 15 hours earlier
submission:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9909872](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9909872)

------
001sky
Important to remeber that ~50% of ceo's are not "above average".

~~~
MichaelGG
That's unlikely to be correct. Whatever your measurement, the average could
easily be skewed towards one part of the population. E.g. including or
excluding Bill Gates and other billionaires will change the average wealth.

~~~
001sky
Define unlikely? I mean just as easily the opposite could be assumed.

~~~
MichaelGG
Huh? The likelyhood that an average comes out to divide a population exactly
50/50 seems low. You'd expect it to be off by a point or two, at least. I'm
just pointing out that your statement that 50% of X are below average is not
usually true. Unless you meant at least 50%. In which case it's a: misleading,
B: still wrong.

~~~
001sky
You've simply conflated symbols (ie, ≈ ≠ = etc).

The original uses shorthand "~=" for coarse equality, in lieu of {option+x}.

------
pbreit
Would love to see a git-based publishing system.

~~~
tfn
Well, there is
[https://github.com/creationix/wheaty](https://github.com/creationix/wheaty) .

------
Shivetya
Yeah but this is the NYTimes which has become more about agenda than facts
with regards to how women and what occurs to them is portrayed. Combine that
with a new certainty that a woman will lead the Democratic nomination and we
are facing down years of this. This is how news and politics go bad, they
focus on identity than facts. By focusing on the identity of those involved
stories will only play out one way as the story was written before it was
known.

Horrible article and they really need to have rules in place so that if an
article substantially changes the url changes. Rules such as losing or adding
a paragraph should suffice as to when a new url is needed. Not changing the
url is fine when corrections are made and noted as such

------
microcolonel
Watch the weasels dance: the jig is almost up.

INB4 1000 downvotes from intolerant agenda pushers, sorry you have to read
this in grey on grey, it's not my choice.

~~~
dang
Please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.

~~~
microcolonel
Does a comment on this article truly need to be substantive? They took a very
reasonable article which was respectful to both Ellen Pao and the Reddit
community, and completely rewrote it as an opinion piece.

Now they're defending that course of action while pretending to be concerned
about it. I think this can accurately be described as "weaseling". I think
it's taking place because people are starting to notice what happens to these
articles, which may soon prove dire to the business they've built on these
practices.

In other words: "Watch the weasels dance: the jig is almost up.", go read a
writing style guide and they'll tell you to cut unnecessary verbiage.

~~~
dang
> Does a comment on this article truly need to be substantive?

Yes. Just because an article is lame doesn't mean the thread should be.

(By the way, please don't go on about downvoting in HN comments—that's so
invariably lame that it has not one but two guidelines against it. Please see
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
Appropriately enough, they're at the bottom.)

------
hoopd
> “I don’t think it veered into opinion,” Mr. Isaac said. “It was analysis,
> backed up by reporting, and written under tight deadline.” He’s probably
> right.

The piece opens up by lamenting the similarites between facts and opinions and
then sidesteps the issue by calling their opinions "analysis". Clever.

~~~
microcolonel
Brace for downvotes, your dissent will not be tolerated!

