Remarks from the Fray:
So basically, if a newspaper makes an error, and someone doesn't perform detailed research to invalidate it, well, hey, reputation is determined by more than just news stories. This theory would be fine if we were all district attorneys. In the real world of job decisions, where our reputation is backed up by a resume and maybe a few references, it's utterly implausible.
But besides the ridiculously low standards of journalism articulated by Slate's editor-in-chief, why the initial skepticism of whether an inaccurate newspaper article can have damaging consequences? Frankly, I don't think the Times Public Editor even needs to bother establishing that. It should be understood by anyone who writes something publicly that words have power- let alone an editor.
As for the proposed remedy of setting up your own web site. There are a number of obvious problems that make the idea difficult to take seriously. One, by setting up the web site you will be drawing everyone's attention to the offending article, including those who wouldn't have seen it. Two, if you don't have any other content, how are you going to convince associates to link to your ever so interesting web site that says essentially, "Joe Shmo" is not a pedophile? Three, if you aren't a professional web designer your web site will shabby and reflect poorly on you. I could go on, but at this point I think I have devoted more thought to the idea than the original author.
I enjoy Slate's to-the-point contrarian attitude, but this article is all attitude no substance, or empathy.
--supercito
(To reply, click here.)
Shafer and Hoyt are a little bit off base in their assertions. In this day and age of kidnappers and pedophiles, that fellow who was falsely accused of fondling someone is indeed being damaged by the paper for its not printing a correction on the accusation. That's very serious stuff.
As more and more employers and potential clients turn to the internet for information regarding the people they hire it is very important that we seek out accuracy. Imagine if you lost the love of your life because she googled your name and found accusations of child fondling. It doesn't take much these days to be written off in the business world either. Even an old DUI or pot smoking case from 25 or 30 years ago can ruin an otherwise stellar life's work.
Now, if those accusations have been proven false, the innocent person must once again work to clear his name. In the case of competition over a promotion, sometimes all it takes is a sliver of doubt to destroy a person's career. By the time the person has re-cleared their name the new position has been filled or the client has hired someone else.
Newspapers have an obligation to print the news and to print only things that are true. If an honest mistake is made then the newspaper has an obligation to correct that mistake. Now that old articles are appearing across the net from 20 years ago, long forgotten mistakes are coming back to injure people.
I disagree that a person's reputation is not his own. A reputation is based on perceptions and facts regarding the person whose reputation is in question. If a man has worked hard his entire life to live within a certain set of parameters in order to have a good reputation, then he has every right to insist his reputation be protected from false information and allegations. The man who was falsely accused of fondling another person has a legitimate beef with that accusation being the first thing people see of his personal history, particularly since the paper refuses to print another story detailing the [falsity of the] allegation.
Even today if newspapers print stories with names of people accused of crimes in their headlines and then the accused are later cleared the newspapers owe that person and the public another story with equal headlines outlining the persons innocence.
Look at Richard Jewel and the living hell he experienced as the news media tried and convicted him. The news media hounded that poor man and his mother into hell. After the man was proven innocent he was given a little bit of press stating he was wrongly accused but the damage was done. Hell that guy should have been given the medal of honor for what he did in Atlanta, he saved a lot of lives that night. Instead America handed him a shit sandwich.
--NickD
(To reply, click here.)
Is it so ridiculous that some people may go to the newspaper of record to get information? By Shafer's logic, anyone who believes something they read in the newspaper is simply gullible. So what's the point of newspapers? Not everyone has the time/inclination/know-how to track down the real story. Some people have "jobs" and rely on newspapers to learn what's going on in the world.
--corkystclair
(To reply, click here.)
(8/31)
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Hitchens: Obama Should Pay More Attention to India and Less to Pakistan
Would the World Be a Better Place If We All Acted More Like Churchill?
Dubai Assumes It's Too Big To Fail. It May Be Wrong.
The Only Good Way To Get Rid of Unused Prescription Drugs
The Fancy Vodka That's Making Great Ads About the Recession
Kid Won't Shut Up? Give Him Your iPhone.
Remarks from the Fray:
So basically, if a newspaper makes an error, and someone doesn't perform detailed research to invalidate it, well, hey, reputation is determined by more than just news stories. This theory would be fine if we were all district attorneys. In the real world of job decisions, where our reputation is backed up by a resume and maybe a few references, it's utterly implausible.
But besides the ridiculously low standards of journalism articulated by Slate's editor-in-chief, why the initial skepticism of whether an inaccurate newspaper article can have damaging consequences? Frankly, I don't think the Times Public Editor even needs to bother establishing that. It should be understood by anyone who writes something publicly that words have power- let alone an editor.
As for the proposed remedy of setting up your own web site. There are a number of obvious problems that make the idea difficult to take seriously. One, by setting up the web site you will be drawing everyone's attention to the offending article, including those who wouldn't have seen it. Two, if you don't have any other content, how are you going to convince associates to link to your ever so interesting web site that says essentially, "Joe Shmo" is not a pedophile? Three, if you aren't a professional web designer your web site will shabby and reflect poorly on you. I could go on, but at this point I think I have devoted more thought to the idea than the original author.
I enjoy Slate's to-the-point contrarian attitude, but this article is all attitude no substance, or empathy.
--supercito
(To reply, click here.)
Shafer and Hoyt are a little bit off base in their assertions. In this day and age of kidnappers and pedophiles, that fellow who was falsely accused of fondling someone is indeed being damaged by the paper for its not printing a correction on the accusation. That's very serious stuff.
As more and more employers and potential clients turn to the internet for information regarding the people they hire it is very important that we seek out accuracy. Imagine if you lost the love of your life because she googled your name and found accusations of child fondling. It doesn't take much these days to be written off in the business world either. Even an old DUI or pot smoking case from 25 or 30 years ago can ruin an otherwise stellar life's work.
Now, if those accusations have been proven false, the innocent person must once again work to clear his name. In the case of competition over a promotion, sometimes all it takes is a sliver of doubt to destroy a person's career. By the time the person has re-cleared their name the new position has been filled or the client has hired someone else.
Newspapers have an obligation to print the news and to print only things that are true. If an honest mistake is made then the newspaper has an obligation to correct that mistake. Now that old articles are appearing across the net from 20 years ago, long forgotten mistakes are coming back to injure people.
I disagree that a person's reputation is not his own. A reputation is based on perceptions and facts regarding the person whose reputation is in question. If a man has worked hard his entire life to live within a certain set of parameters in order to have a good reputation, then he has every right to insist his reputation be protected from false information and allegations. The man who was falsely accused of fondling another person has a legitimate beef with that accusation being the first thing people see of his personal history, particularly since the paper refuses to print another story detailing the [falsity of the] allegation.
Even today if newspapers print stories with names of people accused of crimes in their headlines and then the accused are later cleared the newspapers owe that person and the public another story with equal headlines outlining the persons innocence.
Look at Richard Jewel and the living hell he experienced as the news media tried and convicted him. The news media hounded that poor man and his mother into hell. After the man was proven innocent he was given a little bit of press stating he was wrongly accused but the damage was done. Hell that guy should have been given the medal of honor for what he did in Atlanta, he saved a lot of lives that night. Instead America handed him a shit sandwich.
--NickD
(To reply, click here.)
Is it so ridiculous that some people may go to the newspaper of record to get information? By Shafer's logic, anyone who believes something they read in the newspaper is simply gullible. So what's the point of newspapers? Not everyone has the time/inclination/know-how to track down the real story. Some people have "jobs" and rely on newspapers to learn what's going on in the world.
--corkystclair
(To reply, click here.)
(8/31)