Has The Pirate Bay Lost Its Appeal… Or Should We Not Trust The NY Times?
from the fact-checking? dept
Someone just alerted me to a NY Times story claiming that the guys behind The Pirate Bay have lost their appeal of the verdict that found them guilty. That would be big news (and it may very well happen). However, I can’t find anything else to support it. The NY Times credits the Hollywood Reporter, whose only recent article I can find on the subject merely claims that the TPB guys failed to get the case thrown out. But digging deeper, the only information I can find is that the District Court, which made the original ruling has told the Appeals Court that there was no bias. That’s not surprising — of course the District Court is going to say it wasn’t biased and that its judge wasn’t biased. But I haven’t seen anything that says the Appeals Court has ruled one way or the other on the issue. It looks like the reporters at The Hollywood Reporter and the NY Times may have gotten confused about the difference between the District Court and the Appeals Court — and assumed that because the District Court claimed the judge wasn’t biased, the Appeals Court had ruled that way. Now, it may well come to pass that the Appeals Court does rule that way, but I haven’t seen any reports of that yet, and given how news has spread about this case, you would think such reports would have been out there.
But, you know, it’s the professional reporters at the NY Times who fact check stuff. We bloggers just make up innuendo and rumor. Surely, they couldn’t have gotten the story wrong, right?
Filed Under: fact checking
Companies: ny times, the pirate bay
Comments on “Has The Pirate Bay Lost Its Appeal… Or Should We Not Trust The NY Times?”
or, maybe they just made it all up
not like that has ever happened before
Someone has to have the story first, and yes, it would be big news if the one appeal used is thrown out.
Re: Re:
Someone has to have the story first, and yes, it would be big news if the one appeal used is thrown out.
Yes, someone has to have the story first, but others would have it soon after. No one else seems to be mentioning it — including the TPB folks.
Furthermore, the NYT piece credits the THR piece, but that article (from yesterday morning) does not appear to be accurate either.
Re: Re: Re:
Well… everybody can make mistakes. I still rely on major newspapers and websites to provide me with facts. Blogs play a complimentary role by providing some facts (ignored by major houses), but I wouldn’t rely on that.
Major News Providers: 90% fact (good accuracy) + 10% commentary (except in the case of FOX where it is 25:75).
Blogs: 5% fact (fair accuracy) + 95% commentary.
Sometime commentaries posted on the major news websites are confused for facts and that is quite disturbing!! (Eg: http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/an-innocent-abroad/?scp=1&sq=foxy%20knoxy&st=cse ).
attribution to the hollywood reporter..
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i2976b9e446efa135e830334d65e3cca5
Re: Re:
Yes, I already linked to that piece in the story. But I believe they got it wrong. They seem to be saying that the court ruled that way, but no one else is saying that. All of the stories have said only that the District Court said there was no bias… not the Appeals Court.
I think it’s a case of the supposedly “professional” reporters at the NYT and THR getting the story wrong.
Perhaps there’s new info on the story, but I’m not seeing ANYTHING out of any Swedish sources.
It feels like a big game of “telephone” where THR misread the story from Monday in Sweden and then the NYT misread the THR story.
This is why I wait for TorrentFreak to report this sort of thing. They’ve had the best coverage of the TPB trial.
Re: Re:
Meh, I look at @Sophia and @Brokep. Neither has said anything about this.
So Good...
See, this just shows how good the “professional reporters at the NY Times” really are. They’re so good that they can actually report the news before it even happens! Now that’s good!
Re: So Good...
They must have a time machine! Wow, amazing.
You are correct NY times has not checked thier sources.
Living in Sweden I follow this very closely. The current situation is that they have said the Judge was not biased. The matter of appeals is acording to Swedish media a process that could take up to a year. My reconendation to anyone following this is to google translate http://www.dn.se This is Swedens largest respected newpaper.
RE: You are correct NY times has not checked thier sources
Or there’s thelocal.se. Not sure how respected they would be, but they probably do a better job than google of translation 😛
http://www.thelocal.se/piratebay/
Why do we have to choose? Can’t both be true?
Re: Re:
Since one of Mike’s goals is to discredit mainstream media (those buggy whip people), you don’t get to choose both. Either they are right or they are useless, nothing in between.
Re: Re: discredit
How did you come to that conclusion ?
and I thought MSM was doing it all by themselves.
Re: Re: Re:
Hey, looky! We’ve attracted an NYT troll!
Now where’s that bug spray?
NY Times = Pravda
Worthless joke of a news org.
In his defense
The writer is a fluff writer, I don’t think the times takes him seriously.
Re: In his defense
The writer is a fluff writer, I don’t think the times takes him seriously.
They seem to take him seriously enough to pay for his stuff and publish it.
Of course, there would be no attempts to help a decision to go one way by reporting it in advance…
That’s okay… they also said terrorists took down the trade towers also… ah ha ha
Re: Re:
Terrorists did take down the twin towers. You maybe disputing the identity of those terrorists though, but whoever took down those towards are, by definition, terrorists.
Re: Re: Re:
They are also called “freedom fighters” in some societies 😉
Lost it's appeal?
I, personally, still find the Pirates Bay VERY appealing!
Re: Lost it's appeal?
That’s what I was thinking. The writer was expressing his disenchantment.
The nytimes is a great paper – it fits exactly in my bird cage. It’s the only use for it, though.
Bigger they are, the more they are wrong
I never trust large news groups, these big corporations, as they are often wrong, and their opinions are tainted by corporate money and corrupt political agenda’s.
It’s bad when a place called “The Pirate Bay” is more truthful and upstanding than a major national newspaper.
C'mon, the NY Times wrong...again?
Is this the same NY times with Krugman the foaming Bush inquisitionalist and Nobel Laureate, Dowd the permanently single, yet still hot for an old broad columnist-babe and Rich, the hate everything old white-dude curmudgeon?
To think that the NY times, which coincidentally is virtually bankrupt (lousy business plan) would get a story completely wrong.
So, if your product (news and information) is suspect, why would anyone believe their spin, er reporting?
Trust the NYT?
We haven’t been able to trust the New York Times since they started putting ideology ahead of the truth, many years ago. No, I’m not even talking about commentators vs. journalists; I’m talking about the decision of which news is Fit To Print.
Went to the pirate bay and ....
… to see what it was and had this downloaded onto my machine ….
[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=res://ieframe.dll/dnserror.htm
[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.zeesearch.net/go.php?track_url=aHR0cDovL2MyNi52YWxhcnkuY29tL3BjbGljay52YWxhcnk/Yz0zNzk2MTI3Ny0yYWRjLTRhMDctYTNkOC0yY2QxOGJkZTMyNjA=&keyword=jobs+in+my+area&bidvalue=0.003441&xmlprovider=valary&display_url=&action=redirected
IDList=
IconFile=http://www.zeesearch.net/favicon.ico
IconIndex=1
[{000214A0-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}]
Prop3=19,2
Anyone know what it is?
Re: Went to the pirate bay and ....
Read about that here (in the comments section):
http://thepiratebay.org/blog/155
Re: Went to the pirate bay and ....
Anyone know what it is?
Who ever is running your DNS service seems to have redirected you someplace. Check with them.
Re: Re: Went to the pirate bay and ....
Or he can change his DNS server.
http://torrentfreak.com/media-misreports-on-pirate-bay-biased-judge-090613/
I read many english-speaking reports about it that got the facts wrong. Maybe the NY Times was fooled by one of those. It’s surprising though that they don’t check their facts better.
When the Appeals Court makes it decision I’m sure we will see lots of news about it.
NYT Still Wrong (3 Days Later)
This seems to be the accurate version:
“According to the Stockholm District Court, Judge Tomas Norström was not biased and therefore that component of the Pirate Bay appeal has failed… The appeal will continue with other grounds being submitted to the Court of Appeal, however, this was always one of the strongest components of the appeal.”
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25575/1239/
Re: NYT Still Wrong (3 Days Later)
This seems to be the accurate version: “According to the Stockholm District Court, Judge Tomas Norström was not biased and therefore that component of the Pirate Bay appeal has failed… The appeal will continue with other grounds being submitted to the Court of Appeal, however, this was always one of the strongest components of the appeal.”
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25575/1239/
Nope. That IT Wire report gets it wrong too. It’s confusing the district court, who claims that judge wasn’t biased, with the appeals court, who needs to rule on it. That part of the argument has NOT failed yet. The appeals court simply has not ruled on it.
The district court gave its opinion to the appeals court, and the appeals court is still considering the matter.
Saying that that part of the appeal “failed” is flat out incorrect.
I read many english-speaking reports about it that got the facts wrong. Maybe the NY Times was fooled by one of those. It’s surprising though that they don’t check their facts better.
When the Appeals Court makes it decision I’m sure we will see lots of news about it.
it's fixed now
“This article has been revised to reflect a correction: An earlier version of this report stated that the men’s appeal had been denied.”
Re: it's fixed now
The editor is lazy too. Even the correction notice is poor. It reads better like so:
“This article has been corrected. The earlier version stated that the appeal had been denied.”
Fewer words. Much better.