Hacker News Reader

Comment by mscasts | Hacker News Reader

Well they don't though. They don't correct themselves. At least not in Sweden.

I have seen alternative news sources correct themselves way more often than mainstream media. That could be because I mainly read those news sources but still, it is a fairly new thing.

View on HN

In the US, they correct themselves in small letters at the end without changing the text, or they equivocate that it essentially doesn't matter that much, or try to memory-hole the article. The original claims supercede the reach of the correction by several orders of magnitude.

That is mostly correct. However, the alternative is...?

Headline. Massive block letters at the top of the article. Front-page notice. Put retractions and changes front and center. Make it clear that that's part and parcel of the process of reporting and journalism - that not all mistakes, intentional or otherwise, can be prevented, but that they can at least be corrected transparently. Without that, there is even less reason to trust that their intentions will lead to accurate reporting.

And do you think you're more likely to get that from, say, the Washington Post, or Breitbart?

Neither, from what I've seen. Big retractions made quietly is the pattern across the board, from mainstream outlets to 'alternative media'.

The latter is a propaganda outlet. Places like WP may not print retractions quite like you'd like, but they do print them, people do get fired for ginning up stories, and there is a sense of accountability.

Only for the egregious, easily-checked lies.

In the US, they correct themselves in small letters at the end without changing the text

There is no such thing as "In the US..." as if there is an established standard, or a requirement that you describe. It sounds like you're just gushing hyperbole.

For example, in print, the New York Times publishes its corrections on page two in the same type as the regular stories.

Online, it changes the actual text of the story and then explains at the end what was changed and why. There is no difference in font size.

Online, people do not go back and re-read the article to see it changed. The misinformation sticks by anchor bias and lack of ability to correct. This is, I believe, a critical failing in the electronic vs. physical distribution method as it stands, though I'm certain models could be developed for distribution of corrections as first-order material if these organizations truly wished.

Lots of silent downvotes. Can anyone tell me where I'm mistaken? Let me know if I'm spreading misinformation myself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com