Layers of Editors - an update Posted by: Jon Henke
on Monday, August 13, 2007
This weekend, I noted that the Cincinnati Post's Managing Editor had written "Fred Thompson, though officially undeclared as a candidate, declared war on breast cancer" at a recent Republican debate. In fact, Fred Thompson has not participated in any of the debates so far....the Thompson at the debate was Tommy Thompson.
There's an interesting update.
Today, the Cincinnati Post has "corrected" the column online, but they've made two more errors.
First, while they've changed the name "Fred" to "Tommy", they've left other, now-inaccurate, details in place:
"Tommy Thompson, though officially undeclared as a candidate" - though no longer a candidate, Tommy Thompson was certainly an officially declared candidate.
"Thompson, a cancer survivor himself..." - as far as I can tell, while three of his family members have had cancer, Tommy Thompson "himself" has not.
Second, they failed to note on that page that the column had been substantively changed. That's a major no-no. It's one thing to go back to make minor spelling or typographical edits soon after publishing, but significant, substantive corrections of, or revisions to, an article demand public notice.
Making corrections on the sly is not "journalism", it's just covering your tracks - in this case, poorly, since the Cincinnati Post's corrections themselves have created additional errors of fact.
I don't intend to berate the Post or the editor in question. Errors happen, even with the "layers of editors" and the "careful editing in the traditional media" that is "designed to prevent" these kinds of mistakes. But while the initial error was merely embarrassing, it seems to me that the "correction" in this case reveals a frightfully slipshod operation with more of an interest in self-protection than in accuracy and transparency.
The New Media and/or blogosphere is not an ineffable beast for Newspapers and traditional media to fear. It could be a resource, a refining tool, that makes them better - even, as some newspapers are finding, a way to reach new consumers, bridge generational divides and create a new business model. But they have to understand it first.
Jon... Seriously... I’m about to start donating to Hunter.
Is Fred going to actually declare, or is he going to pull something from the next to last season of West Wing, and announce during the canidate voting?
Obviously, I’m not going to discuss internal issues in the comment section here. Suffice it to say, Fred Thompson is very busy right now doing things that need to be done as part of the decision-making process. If he decides to enter, he’ll probably do so in a time period that’s quite normal by historical standards. He only appears to be "late" because he hasn’t started a campaign absurdly early as have some others.
In other words, be patient. There’s a lot of time before votes are cast. Don’t let the hyper-focused activist/blogosphere community fool you into thinking it’s already the 4th quarter. Most people just aren’t paying attention yet.
Jon wrote: "The New Media and/or blogosphere is not an ineffable beast for Newspapers and traditional media to fear. It could be a resource, a refining tool, that makes them better -"
Only if their real intent is to inform, rather than to promote an agenda via lies, misrepresentation willful omissions .. you know, like they’ve been doing for a couple generations now from their sanctimonious perches.
Only if their real intent is to inform, rather than to promote an agenda via lies, misrepresentation willful omissions .. you know, like they’ve been doing for a couple generations now from their sanctimonious perches.
I’m confused... Are you talking about New Media, or Newspapers and Traditional Media?
People tend to think that my harping about the Liberal Narrative is amusing. Well, may be. Forget that aspect and ask yourself “What if liberal bias in the media has gone so far that the most important information in news stories is omitted in order to reinforce such a narrative?” Check this out if you have been following the schoolyard execution story (the emphasized details did not appear in theAP story).
”The illegal immigrant accused in the execution-style killings of three college students in Newark was freed on bail twice this year after being charged with assault and child rape, prosecutors said yesterday... And as if the crime weren’t already heinous enough, Fox News Channel 5 reported that two of the victims may have been sexually assaulted before being shot.” [my emphasis]
”I’m wondering if … reporting is being seen more and more as an opportunity to make the facts fit the narrative that fits the bias of the writers…it took six AP writers (Erin McClam, David Porter, Jeffrey Gold, Janet Frankston Lorin, Daniela Flores, and Randall Chase) to come up with this story. It must be hard work when there are so many details that have to be omitted.
I’m with Eric on this one. He has more to say about it.
he’ll probably do so in a time period that’s quite normal by historical standards
This seems to satisfy the call for "fresh" candidates.
Some of the currnt crop seem to be "professional candidates" with no other apparent means of support, who do this stuff year after year on somebody else’s dime.
Now here’s a guy who is writing about the Liberal Narrative without mentioning it by name:
”If anyone ever starts a museum of horrible explanations, the one-liner by Newsweek’s Evan Thomas about his magazine’s dubious reporting on the Duke non-rape case — "The narrative was right but the facts were wrong" — is destined to become a popular exhibit, right up there with "we had to destroy the village to save it.
...We now live in a docudrama world in which techniques of fiction and nonfiction are starting to blur. Many reporters think objectivity is a myth. They see journalism as inherently a subjective exercise in which the feelings and the will of the journalist function to reveal the truth of what has occurred. Two results are the emotional commitment to powerful but untrue story lines, and a further loss of credibility for the press."
