> We should be praising the Times for having the courage and integrity for calling out their own errors, which many publications wouldn't do, rather than punishing them for not figuring it out in the first place.
We can do both, praise and criticize. While I agree with your statements, they NYT also have another job: Report the news accurately. That's why they exist and it's critical to our society.
We shouldn't overreact to one error and I think the NY Times is generally more reliable than most. A metric for overall reliability would be very valuable, especially in the disinformation age. That would be an interesting project for a leading journalism school. But how to measure it? Omissions, including context, are just as significant inaccuracies as misstatements (imagine the story 'The U.S. declares war on Japan!' without context). How could the study objectively set a standard for what facts and context should be included?
We can do both, praise and criticize. While I agree with your statements, they NYT also have another job: Report the news accurately. That's why they exist and it's critical to our society.
We shouldn't overreact to one error and I think the NY Times is generally more reliable than most. A metric for overall reliability would be very valuable, especially in the disinformation age. That would be an interesting project for a leading journalism school. But how to measure it? Omissions, including context, are just as significant inaccuracies as misstatements (imagine the story 'The U.S. declares war on Japan!' without context). How could the study objectively set a standard for what facts and context should be included?