Actuarial Outpost

Actuarial Outpost (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/index.php)
-   Non-Actuarial Topics (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/forumdisplay.php?f=22)
-   -   Department of Corrections (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=8177)

NoName 12-16-2002 04:28 AM

Department of Corrections
 
Here's one from the New York Times, via The Corner at National Review:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/ma...ORRECTION.html

Quote:

An article on Nov. 10 about animal rights referred erroneously to an island in the Indian Ocean and to events there involving goats and endangered giant sea sparrows that could possibly lead to the killing of goats by environmental groups. Wrightson Island does not exist; both the island and the events are hypothetical figments from a book (also mentioned in the article), ''Beginning Again,'' by David Ehrenfeld. No giant sea sparrow is known to be endangered by the eating habits of goats.

NoName 05-10-2003 09:34 PM

The mother of all corrections:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/na...=all&position=

Quote:

Following is an accounting of the articles in which falsification, plagiarism and similar problems were discovered in a review of articles written by Jayson Blair, a reporter for The New York Times who resigned May 1. The review, conducted by a team of Times reporters and researchers, concentrated on the 73 articles Mr. Blair wrote since late October, when he was given roving national assignments and began covering major news events including the Washington-area sniper attacks and the rescue of Pfc. Jessica D. Lynch. Spot checks of his previous stories also found errors of fact and possible fabrications.

[very long lost of factual errors ranging from minor to major, denied stories, instances of plagiarism, reports filed from places Blair appears never to have visited, etc.]

Readers with information about other articles by Jayson Blair that may be false wholly or in part are asked to e-mail The Times: retrace@nytimes.com.

Natalie_Portman 05-10-2003 09:58 PM

See what deadline pressure does to a man?

:wink:

E. Blackadder 05-10-2003 10:50 PM

or to an IvyPrincess. :(

Jonas Grumby 05-11-2003 09:41 AM

Hey, at least he didn't win a Pulitzer for it.

Jonas Grumby 05-11-2003 09:45 AM

Nor is he accused of seducing one of his teenage interviewees, like Bob Greene.

E. Blackadder 05-11-2003 10:27 AM

Of course that poor seduced teenager waited 14 years before "coming out."

That's what I like about corporate America, no statute of limitations.

Ahh, here we go...
Quote:

Bob Laurence, a writer for the San Diego Union-Tribune, was incredulous. "Something about this story doesn't ring true. Either the Tribune is the most puritanical, self-righteous, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou workplace this side of Dr. Laura's broadcast booth, or there's more happening here than either side is admitting," wrote Laurence on the Jim Romanesko MediaNews forum on the Poynter Institute Web site.

It shows that some of our colleagues don't get it and possibly never will. Every profession greeted the influx of women in the 1960s and 1970s with hostility and hazing rituals, but journalism's response was particularly pernicious in its propagation of a myth of the good old days. You know the drill: Oh, for the days when men were men, and women were secretaries who got chased around the desk or low-level reporters who got stuck covering society galas. Real journalists swore, drank, womanized and occasionally rolled up their sleeves and banged out stories on Remington manual typewriters. The only place to meet a source was in a bar and sexual harassment codes--well, they didn't exist.

The ethics code being invoked to exculpate Greene is no less archaic. It's a pretty minimal standard: Journalists must avoid conflicts of interest. It's a conflict of interest if you sleep with a source. You can write the story or have the affair but you can't do both at the same time.

If you apply that standard, what Greene did back in 1988 is fine and dandy. He met the woman, wrote a column about her, and then commenced the relationship. As far as we know, he never wrote about her again. She was of legal age to give consent and he broke no laws. Ergo, it's nobody's business but Greene's and he has the perfect right to keep cranking out columns deploring the use of profanity around children and the suggestiveness of Madonna concerts.

Natalie_Portman 05-11-2003 11:36 AM

Did you know that the smell of a newspaper is addictive?

Jonas Grumby 05-11-2003 04:33 PM

An odd sort of relativism from you, EB. No laws or strict ethical codes broken? Hey, no problem! So what if a writer who spent his career writing about good old American values and breaches of morality turned out to be cheating on his wife (family)?

Bill Bennett would roll over in his (recently dug) grave, if he weren't so preoccupied with going cold turkey.

E. Blackadder 05-11-2003 05:09 PM

It has to do with the passage of time, and the relative inconsequence of the action.

Are we supposed to wonder every day of our lives whether some random episode from the distant past is going to be plastered on the front page? I think not.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Page generated in 0.13160 seconds with 9 queries