Even better: Saying something to a reporter, and then reading what you supposedly said within quotation marks. (Although perhaps my data is old and things have gotten better since adequate interview-recording equipment is now on every smartphone.)
For instance if you say: "Plan ABC is good, however the specific concerns are X, Y, and Z. If care is not taken in how these issued are addressed it will likely be a very expensive failure".
The article will appear as: PLAN HAS BROAD SUPPORT. _red says, "Plan ABC is good".
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gel...
Not saying that is exactly what happened in the NYT piece, but that is certainly feasible in situations like this. The first person who writes the article is the person who was on duty in the newsroom or its virtual equivalent when the news broke. They don't know the details or history of the greater issue, so they stick to reporting the facts. Later, journalists with more domain expertise rewrite and add to the story. Maybe in this instance they are already knowledgeable about Reddit's questionable history with sexism. They see a story about a sexist website deposing a female CEO who is a controversial figure in gender relations (for lack of a better term). Suddenly the story gets reframed with that in mind. The extra opinion is only added because they know more about the subject.
Which isn't necessarily any worse than the external bias that the reporter/editor may have when covering a subject. And that bias is amplified coming from a place of ignorance.
Oddly, all of his official account's posts have been in the GamerGate subreddit.
Up until now, no one has pointed out the article eerily resembles the tones that began GamerGate.
The more you look at it, the more it appears to be a deliberate troll to highlight the irony of injecting identity politics into journalism.
He's a trojan horse. https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3cur16/im_m...
Also, so called "anti-gamer gaters" don't simply go off and offer AMA's to "gamergaters".
Anti-GG's modus operandi is to cast aside any discussion as misogyny or harassment.
Both sides harass each other, unfortunately.
An AMA which he held deliberately vague and where he made various of the claims that critics of "GamerGate" make to begin with, for which he was amply downvoted at times: https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3cur16/im_m...
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3cur16/im_m...
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3cur16/im_m...
Again, what does this say about an ideology that sees someone writing for a giant publication as "tainted" simply for posting in a certain Subreddit, even if he largely agrees with them?
You don't even need to read about it elsewhere. Your own recollection of the details of events you witnessed is usually very malleable. It's one reason why eyewitness testimony needs to be treated carefully. E.g. from Wikipedia[1]:
Memory recall has been considered a credible
source in the past, but has recently come under
attack as forensics can now support psychologists
in their claim that memories and individual
perceptions are unreliable; being easily
manipulated, altered, and biased.
To write accurately about something that you don't understand is hard. You either have to be very vague or take the time required.
If anything, the internet allows you to publish revisions of the original article, allowing you to correct your mistakes. Very hard to do with the traditional newspaper.
I agree with you as it reaffirms to me how inaccurate media articles are. There are few to no news resources that provide in-depth investigative journalism. The internet makes the news slower because I check multiple diverse sources, and often the report, bias, story is different. It's interesting.
I also see where the story/article is continuously updated by mainstream internet news agencies to fix inaccuracies, spelling, grammar, reduce liability, change the title, change the entire story, change the bias, etc... The comments are almost always more interesting than the actual news report, and can often provide a more accurate report of what actually happened. What were once former respectable news organizations doing investigative reporting no longer exist. We cannot expect "journalism" when reading news on the internet, we need to do that work ourselves.