Hacker News Reader

Comment by afpx | Hacker News Reader

The NYT reporting seems pretty reliable to me. Could you give a few notable examples at least to support that claim?

For what it's worth, the NYT was also behind the podcast series Caliphate, which I wept to on hearing the first hand accounts of murder and violation perpetrated in the name of ISIS. It came to light later that their primary source they relied on for the story fabricated the whole thing. [1]

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55375277

I believe the NYT also published their own failing there, widely, on its own front page.

Correct. The bar isn't "we never make mistakes". They are human, everybody messes up. The question is, what happens when you do? Issuing a correction is the best standard we can hope for.

Yes, but the author was not fired. Until journalist that fuck up this bad get fired, it's honestly hard to blame people for not taking these publications seriously.

In 2020, Callimachi was reassigned at the Times and will no longer cover terrorism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/caliphate-rev...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-new-york-times-wmd-cov...

Fair but that also stemmed from their own reporting that their own coverage was flawed...

It makes me trust them more since they're auditing themselves like that. Shows high journalistic integrity.

What do you mean? They did not uncover themselves that the WMDs did not exist.

They shared it with their audience. The standard isn’t always be right, it’s have integrity.

Everybody shared it with 'the audience'. The WMDs were obviously not there, were they? Hard to keep it up.

Everyone in the government was saying they were there. Not reporting that would be negligent. Should NYT have been faster at reporting the truth? Of course. But when the president says there are weapons of mass destruction you report as much.

The NYT retracted the story, which is pretty much all I can hope for in a situation like this.

One way outlets like the NYT slant their credibility into the ground is by always giving Democrats the benefit of any doubt, and never giving it to anyone else. Everything that could be good for Democrats is amplified to 11, everything that could be a bad look for everyone else is amplified to 11 in the other direction. They appear to be a lot more reliable than they actually are.

Your comment is neither an example nor evidence.

Source?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com