Comments on: Guardian column: Making mistakes

By: New Media Publishing » New Media Observations

New Media Publishing » New Media Observations — Tue, 15 May 2007 15:58:56 +0000

[...] stretch back to almost two years and there are some interesting blogs for reference, including a piece he wrote for the Guardian where he talks about bloggers, new media and ‘old media’. [...]

By: Ruth

Ruth — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:13:42 +0000

As one who tries to get substantive and accurate sources for any statement I make in my blog (see homepage), I have discovered good information in a source that is more radical than I would like, and will use it with a stipulation to see the sources cited by that particular item. If I had days and days, I would go to the background material and painstakingly track down the exact pieces of info. No, I don’t have days and days before the particular post would be stone-cold stale. I also have discovered that when there is a damaging piece of info about our gov’t there will also be posted a dispute with that info by our gov’t - what a lot of $$ we seem to be spending arguing with what usually turns out to be accurate, but not flattering to the gov’t - do I just ignore those pieces of propaganda in the interest of time? I have come to the conclusion that they are simple obfuscation, they haven’t yet worked out to be accurate.

By: The Daily Novel » Blog Archive » The old media still hold the power

The Daily Novel » Blog Archive » The old media still hold the power — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:45:33 +0000

[...] There is much that I agree with in Jeff Jarvis’s blog yesterday on Bloggers’ tales. I agree that online ‘errors can spread wider faster’. I agree that the internet changes the relationship of publisher and subject in the sense that the subject can now write back. I like the example he gives of how the internet enabled the prompt correction of a mistake made by the old media, in this case the BBC. [...]

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:29:30 +0000

Transparency is certainly the key here. If the viewer can see what was changed and when, with access to the previous version and reasons, then certainly I think it is okay to ammend the original, archived version. A casual searcher may only find the original item and not come across an addemendum.

It would be wonderful to have some kind of reference device, with which changes to the original would then cascade through those pages that reference it. That is a bit pie in the sky though. Some internet wizard needs to make it happen.

By: Colin Cooper

Colin Cooper — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:14:25 +0000

I think this debate about mistakes is missing the main point of libel laws. Yes, everyone makes mistakes - some more damaging than others - but as long as everyone agrees to correct those mistakes when pointed out, there should be no real problem. But what about malicious falsehoods? Accusations that have been made with no attempt at accuracy, merely to defame the target? What if the defamer will not gentlemanly withdraw the remarks? Surely there must be some redress for the victim - and that is what the libel laws, however inefficient, are there to provide. I don’t see much point in a code of practice because it won’t stop anyone who simply wants to attack someone else’s reputation without any regard for the truth. For those cases, libel laws are as necessary as they ever were.

By: Robert Feinman

Robert Feinman — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:32:58 +0000

There is an unresolved issue with mistakes. Does the publisher issue a correction as a separate item, or does the publisher go back into the archives and correct the original item?

With most publications being archived electronically the latter option is easy to do. I remember several cases from my publishing days where pages were sent to journal subscribers to paste over the page with the error. In one case an entire issue was reprinted and sent out.

So should the error be erased or should the correction be part of the history? How does one ensure that the two items will remain together in that case? What about the case where the original item has already been quoted elsewhere in the erroneous form. The publisher has no way of knowing this and the commentator has no way of knowing of the correction.

In some cases changing the original may be seen as a response to political pressure or censorship. Hiding the change abets the conspiracy.

By: Jeffrey -- New York

Jeffrey -- New York — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:18:11 +0000

Jeff,

I have found that the blogosphere is quicker to correct mistakes than the MSM. I have friends who are journalists, one of them working in Iraq right now with the New York Times, and overall they are doing very good work with all the professionalism one would expect. But one problem they have with breaking news is the rush to locate a source and then beat the competition to the story. And that rush to print often compromises their integrity — and because of the 24-hr cycle, they rarely go back to the same story.

A good example of this is the story of the looting of the Iraqi National Musuem just after the fall of Baghdad. Two years ago I spent a month researching that story — in German and French, along with English — and wrote up what I found and then posted it (Iraq Antiquities Revisited). This is from the end of the piece, where I am summarizing my findings:

Months later, when the truth finally surfaced and people began to ask how the reporters had made so many basic mistakes, John F. Burns would confess to Andrew Lawler that he and the other journalists were â€œdisposed to believe the worstâ€ and that â€œpassion got the better of us.â€ John F. Burns, to his credit, was one of the few people involved in this story to admit that a mistake had been made. (21)

John F. Burns and Paul McGeough were also simply exhausted. They had been reporting non-stop for several months with a maximum of a few hours of sleep a night and trying to function under considerable and sometimes daily threats to their lives. They also were operating in an environment where it was almost impossible to verify much of the information that they gathered. (22)

If there were one mistake that overshadowed all the others it would have to be using Nabhal Amin as a reliable witness when, in fact, she no longer worked for the museum complex. John F. Burns, Paul McGeough, Hamza Hendawi, and Hassan Hafidh had neither the time nor resources — or perhaps even the inclination — to verify her claim of identity and position.

All the journalists that day used one source, Nabhal Amin, and she was not a credible witness. Amazingly to me, no one went back the next day to track her down to confirm her original statements or searched out anyone who could corroborate her claims. One woman’s interpretation of the events was allowed to echo around the world as the truth. Very hard to believe, but that is indeed what happened.

So, I agree with you. Let’s keep a thousands eyes on the stories and let the principles of verification and debate proceed. We then stand a much better chance of learning what really happened.

By: Jeffrey -- New York

Jeffrey -- New York — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:54:14 +0000

Jeff,

I’ve been going to IraqSlogger — where Zeyad is working for Eason Jordan — and I really like the news roundups and some of the features. I have noticed, however, that there is no way for us to comment or respond to any of the articles and that there is currently no roundup of what the Iraqi bloggers are writing.

Iraqi blogger Baghdad Treasure has just posted a very good blog entry on what it was like to grow up hating Jews because of the propaganda under Saddam’s totalitarian control. He writes movingly how just in the last couple of years he has been able to learn the truth for himself — from blogs!

While I really like IraqSlogger, I hope that they decide to make it more interactive and that they include the voices of the Iraqi bloggers.