Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Bad journalistic ethics: Newsweek's "retraction"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bad journalistic ethics: Newsweek's "retraction"

    As most of you probably know, Newsweek ran a story alleging that Amy Comey Barrett is associated with the religious group that served for the inspiration for Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale, a story that turned out to have no basis in reality. Newsweek issued a retraction... and appended it to the end of the article. I've always thought that the common practice for retractions is to place them at the front of the article. Indeed, this article is still floating around, because people are not scrolling to the bottom and seeing that it has been retracted.

    You can still see the article here in all its glory: https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-b...s-tale-1533293

    This isn't sloppy; it's unethical.
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

  • #2
    That wasn't a retraction. It was a correction where they "regret the error" but let the original story stand with a disclaimer at the bottom. It was effectively the equivalent of a



    by "Emily Litella"

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
      Newsweek ran a story alleging that Amy Comey Barrett is associated with the religious group that served for the inspiration for Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale, a story that turned out to have no basis in reality.
      If you'd read the article, you wouldn't have written this.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

        If you'd read the article, you wouldn't have written this.
        Then why the correction:

        "This article's headline originally stated that People of Praise inspired 'The Handmaid's Tale'. The book's author, Margaret Atwood, has never specifically mentioned the group as being the inspiration for her work. A New Yorker profile of the author from 2017 mentions a newspaper clipping as part of her research for the book of a different charismatic Catholic group, People of Hope. Newsweek regrets the error."
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by seer View Post

          Then why the correction:

          "This article's headline originally stated that People of Praise inspired 'The Handmaid's Tale'. The book's author, Margaret Atwood, has never specifically mentioned the group as being the inspiration for her work. A New Yorker profile of the author from 2017 mentions a newspaper clipping as part of her research for the book of a different charismatic Catholic group, People of Hope. Newsweek regrets the error."
          If you'd read the correction, you wouldn't be asking.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
            I've always thought that the common practice for retractions is to place them at the front of the article.
            The common practice for the liberal media has always been to bury retractions and allow the original false story to remain in the public consciousness.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

              If you'd read the correction, you wouldn't be asking.
              If you read his post you wouldn't be making asinine assertions about his not reading the correction.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                If you read his post you wouldn't be making asinine assertions about his not reading the correction.
                I think his point is that the correction says that the headline was in error, not that there were any factual errors in the article. Now that the headline has been changed, it really isn't a problem that the article is still floating around, and it isn't all that important to notify people who are currently reading the article that the headline was originally wrong. Hence the placement of the correction at the end of the article.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  If you read his post you wouldn't be making asinine assertions about his not reading the correction.
                  I live for unwitting irony.

                  Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                  I think his point is that the correction says that the headline was in error, not that there were any factual errors in the article. Now that the headline has been changed, it really isn't a problem that the article is still floating around, and it isn't all that important to notify people who are currently reading the article that the headline was originally wrong. Hence the placement of the correction at the end of the article.
                  It's not just that they don't read. They attack those who do. It's not just that they don't check facts. They attack the fact checkers. Not only will they not read your clarification, they'll attack you for it. This entire thread is evidence.

                  Comment

                  Related Threads

                  Collapse

                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by rogue06, Today, 08:29 AM
                  12 responses
                  61 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Ronson
                  by Ronson
                   
                  Started by Electric Skeptic, Yesterday, 10:28 AM
                  3 responses
                  41 views
                  2 likes
                  Last Post Electric Skeptic  
                  Started by Whateverman, 10-29-2020, 05:50 PM
                  10 responses
                  109 views
                  1 like
                  Last Post Stoic
                  by Stoic
                   
                  Started by LiconaFan97, 10-29-2020, 05:19 PM
                  3 responses
                  28 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                  Started by Kate22, 10-29-2020, 08:56 AM
                  39 responses
                  356 views
                  1 like
                  Last Post Kate22
                  by Kate22
                   
                  Working...
                  X