Media and Technology
Once-upon-a-time, long before blogging software became synonymous with digital publishing, a core ethic of those who blogged was “show the reader when you change an article.” The resulting full disclosure was a boon to readers.
Two recent incidents from the MSM illustrate why I think news organizations should rethink their publishing policy and incorporate this reader-centric approach to editing.
Today I learned about a purported New York Times rewrite of the Occupy Wallstreet march across the Brooklyn Bridge on Saturday.
I say “purported” because I can’t find the source of the allegation. However, the current version of the story that is on the NYT City Room shows three names on the byline, including the two in the allegation: Al Baker, Colin Moynihan and Sarah Maslin Nir. This gives credence, in my mind, to the screen grabs, as does this analysis of the changing story from the Village Voice (note that a NYT freelancer covering the event was arrested).
While at the recent Online News Association meeting in Boston, I complained to a colleague at CNN about the impossibility of finding the original version of a story on CNN. In Utah, citizens had lifted a burning car off of a motorcyclist; the story had a permanent URL but rotating content. In other words, CNN kept the URL alive but the lede and multimedia content changed without notice. The original video, for example, was displaced with no mention of the change and no information to show readers that the story had morphed.
What are those blogger ethics and how do they impact these two stories?
First, the time-stamp shows when an article was originally published and if it was edited.
If an article was subsequently edited, a new timestamp would show an edited date/time. Although CNN misses the edit clue, the NY Times City Room story shows a first and current edit time (screen grab). There is no way to know how many times the story has been edited, however. Moreover, the photo slide show has no date (screen grab).
What about misspellings and grammar? Unless they materially affect the meaning of the article, I’m agnostic about the need to indicate those changes inline. Although it’s part of the newspaper ethic to own up to minor mistakes (errata typically mention misspellings or occasionally mis-atttribution) not even these seem to make their way into the digital space, perhaps because it is so easy to “fix” the error.
Second, if there are significant changes of fact, those changes are abundantly clear to the reader.
For example, the revised article might contain “strike through” text; the old text could be read but would be lined-out. In a perfect world, the new text would be in italics. The NY Times City Room story shows no evidence of revision; it doesn’t even tell us that there has been a progression of writers. We don’t know which parts are new, which parts have been edited or which parts are missing. The CNN story does not even acknowledge that it was modified after the initial posting.
Third, if the edits are addenda, instead of a rewrite, that would be indicated by the slug update.
Sometimes, the update slug is where we find the revised date/time. The update might appear before the main article or after it, depending on the context and nature of the updated information.
More On The CNN Example
In the case of CNN, this is the original video, and this is the link to the original story.
The crash happened late morning on Monday September 12; the CNN story is dated September 13, 7.07 AM Eastern. Sometime during the day, CNN anchor Piers Morgan talked with the uncle of the trapped motorcyclist and CNN substituted that clip for the original one and also rewrote the story. We can be pretty sure that this first clip wasn’t aired at 5 am in Utah because the NYTimes tells us (timestamped 10.23 PM Eastern) that the uncle expressed his thanks at a press conference. The press conference probably happened later on Tuesday because most press mentions are dated Wednesday September 14.
CNN provides nothing that tells the reader that the story was updated or how many times it might have been updated.
In addition, try picking out the original video from the three thumbnails at the bottom of the story (if you read far enough to discover that there are other video instances).
Not A Good Excuse
I can hear the rationale — and it goes something like this: “Our content management system (CMS) won’t let us do that.”
Bull. It’s 2011. Either get a new CMS or develop intelligent work-arounds that inform your readers. Or they _will_ go elsewhere.
In an age where content manipulation is as easy one-two-three now press-publish, this kind of transparency is needed more than ever.
***
Aside:
I find it intriguing that The Guardian links to a YouTube clip that shows what appears to be police leading the protestors on the bridge whereas the NYT shows a YouTube clip of the arrests. But that’s the subject of a different essay, as is the rationale for editing the Occupy WallStreet protest.
Sources for the NYT allegation:
- https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150312234050942&set=a.469813215941.261399.175868780941&type=1
- http://www.nextlevelofnews.com/2011/10/occupywallstreet-why-did-the-new-york-times-change-their-brooklyn-bridge-arrests-story.html
- https://plus.google.com/117036888556644526115/posts/Tij3x9YTfJW
- http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/10/why_did_the_new_1.php
Also posted at Google+ and edited for formatting errors in the transcription from G+ to WordPress.
Known for gnawing at complex questions like a terrier with a bone. Digital evangelist, writer, teacher. Transplanted Southerner; teach newbies to ride motorcycles. @kegill (Twitter and Mastodon.social); wiredpen.com