Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNY Times' 'Stealth Editing' to Undermine Sanders Was Unethical, Writes Public Editor
In a little "stealth editing" of our own, we thought we'd share New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan's op-ed reaction on Thursday (3/17) to criticism by Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi and others that Jennifer Steinhauer's article's editing by the New York Times was unethical. To add to the complexity of NYT editorial opinion, she agrees with the criticism:
My take: The changes to this story were so substantive that a reader who saw the piece when it first went up might come away with a very different sense of Mr. Sanderss legislative accomplishments than one who saw it hours later. (The Sanders campaign shared the initial story on social media; its hard to imagine it would have done that if the edited version had appeared first.)
Given the level of revision, transparency with the readers required that they be given some kind of heads-up, and even an explanation.
Matt Purdy, a deputy executive director at the NYT, is among the NYT editorial staff Sullivan quotes as defending the edits. But she grants the readers' responses in an update to her article that considering that the Steinhauer article covered Sanders' legislative history, rather than breaking news, it should have been properly edited into the current election context before being published, since there is little justification that the edits were dependent on any breaking news.
My take: The changes to this story were so substantive that a reader who saw the piece when it first went up might come away with a very different sense of Mr. Sanderss legislative accomplishments than one who saw it hours later. (The Sanders campaign shared the initial story on social media; its hard to imagine it would have done that if the edited version had appeared first.)
Given the level of revision, transparency with the readers required that they be given some kind of heads-up, and even an explanation.
Matt Purdy, a deputy executive director at the NYT, is among the NYT editorial staff Sullivan quotes as defending the edits. But she grants the readers' responses in an update to her article that considering that the Steinhauer article covered Sanders' legislative history, rather than breaking news, it should have been properly edited into the current election context before being published, since there is little justification that the edits were dependent on any breaking news.
http://www.alternet.org/media/new-york-times-stealth-editing-undermine-sanders-was-unethical-writes-nyt-public-editor
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 994 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (17)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NY Times' 'Stealth Editing' to Undermine Sanders Was Unethical, Writes Public Editor (Original Post)
GreatGazoo
Mar 2016
OP
Just one in a legion of corporate media conglomeration manipulations against Bernie.
Uncle Joe
Mar 2016
#1
Uncle Joe
(58,524 posts)1. Just one in a legion of corporate media conglomeration manipulations against Bernie.
Thanks for the thread, GreatGazoo.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)2. Its the NEW New York Times, unethical and they don't give a shit!
"News that's fit to shit"
Lochloosa
(16,083 posts)3. And who was fired?
That's what I thought.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)5. yes, no one. business as usual
gollygee
(22,336 posts)4. I absolutely agree this was unethical
And not just because of the editing after it was posted. Any editing that so obviously creates bias in a story that is not clearly marked as an op/ed is unethical.