
Lessig vs. NYT: Very. Good. News - jashkenas
https://medium.com/@lessig/lessig-v-nyt-very-good-news-d8b3c57150c4
======
listenallyall
What the hell is going on at the New York freaking Times?

It took "200 days and the filing of a federal case" before Lawrence Lessig got
a correction:

"An earlier version of this article referred imprecisely in the lead paragraph
to the views of Professor Lawrence Lessig."

Sharyl Attkisson didn't have to wait that long, but it still took the NYT
quite a long time -- far longer than Twitter mobs' reactions -- before
acknowledging it "referred imprecisly" to her reporting:

"An earlier version of this article referred imprecisely to statements made by
Sharyl Attkisson. Ms. Attkisson accurately reported the number and location of
U.S. coronavirus deaths, as of the date of her March 13 podcast."

[https://www.aim.org/aim-column/ny-times-apologizes-for-
inacc...](https://www.aim.org/aim-column/ny-times-apologizes-for-inaccurate-
article-about-coronavirus-doubters/)

[https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/04/new-york-times-nyt-
corre...](https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/04/new-york-times-nyt-corrects-
false-jeremy-peters-article-that-defamed-sharyl-attkisson/)

------
_bxg1
I used to think the NYT was a bastion of real journalism, and supported them
as such for a while. Eventually I picked up on their blatant sensationalism,
hardly better than Fox News.

I've since switched to NPR and it's a world of difference. The most blessedly
dispassionate headlines you could ask for.

~~~
CamperBob2
I normally hate "BSAB" arguments, but in this case they are hard to defend
against. The modern New York Times is basically the result of staring too long
into the Fox News abyss.

~~~
runamok
I had to Google bsab to come up with "both sides are bad".

Can't agree the NYT even approaches Fox though.

This seems like a simple case of libel. The headline invokes a mob who will
likely not even read the article which has more nuance. Just a mercenary
approach to get more eyeballs aka micropennies.

------
tom_mellior
I agree that the lede was false, and it's good that it was changed. Not that
the "corrected" version of "defend[ing] a university official who anonymously
accepted donations from convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein" makes Lessig
look _much_ better.

As for the headline: "If You Take Epstein’s Money, Do It in Secret" \-- Lessig
literally says
([https://web.archive.org/web/20190914091011/https://www.nytim...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190914091011/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/business/lessig-
epstein-ito-mit.html)) the following: " _if_ the institution says it’s going
to take this money, then at the very least it should not be offering the gift
of reputation laundering for those who give it" (emphasis in the original). I
don't think it's a very big stretch to summarize that as "If You Take
Epstein’s Money, Do It in Secret".

There is some context: The quote above is preceded by "No. My preference is
that none of this money should be in institutions, but". But still... he said
it. He could have left it at "Do you think it’s O.K. if this is kept secret?"
\-- "No.", and he didn't. He could have argued that the money should be passed
along to a charity or whatever, and he didn't. He chose to say what he said.

I hate clickbait and I respect Lessig in general, but in this instance he did
indeed say what the NYT alleges that he said. And it was a dumb thing to say.

