NYTimes Shocked That People Write Blogs To Respond To Press Inaccuracies
from the they're-just-discovering-this-now? dept
DV Henkel-Wallace writes “The New York Times has an article expressing surprise that people who aren’t happy about articles blog about it, including full disclosure of interview transcripts and the like. As an article, that alone may not be so interesting. But although they tried to keep article somewhat neutral, it still reflects some shock that the gatekeepers don’t get to “keep the gate” as it were. The best quote:
“A newspaper reporter’s original article is likely to disappear from the free Web site after a few days and become inaccessible unless purchased from the newspaper’s archives, while the blogger’s version of events remains available forever.”
Somehow the Times failed to point out that the one-week limitation is in no way unfair: they choose to take their content offline!”
Comments on “NYTimes Shocked That People Write Blogs To Respond To Press Inaccuracies”
Correct
It’s a good idea, I completely agree with fact-checking, and bloggers’ right to do it. How long a site wants to hold on to its content is it’s own business, be it a blogger’s comments or a news site’s article.
I see no problem with it, although I would imagine only news sites that are intentionally dishonest or have an intent to mislead, or twist the truth, will not like it much.
If a news service is honest and has nothing to hide, why should they mind? They shouldn’t. The content that ‘hangs around’ on a bloggers site can be a credit to the news service, a reminder of its integrity over time.
Of course it can also remind us of untrustworthy behavior, but that is as it should be, it goes without saying that you should expect everything you do on the net to be recorded, the good and bad. You can’t erase with a magic wand your past misdeeds, you have to own up to them, learn, and live with them. A news site should get no preferential exception, as the rest of us don’t.
If a news site wants to charge for archived content, instead of making their viewpoint publicly accessible in the midst of a debate, then that’s their business.. and their loss.
Who has bias?
Having read the NYTimes article, I did not detect any bias from the author one way or another. The author was simply stating, “Several journalists are discovering that their interview subjects like to talk back on their own web sites. Here are a few examples.”
Your inaccurate title and description looks like a case of an Internet web site misrepresenting what the mainstream media is saying. How ironic!