NY Times 'Corrects' False Article About Pirate Bay Appeal... Still Gets It Wrong
from the fact-checking? dept
It my seem like I'm pushing on this one a bit, but it's because I am honestly surprised that the NY Times got this one so badly wrong, and that they've been so slow to do anything about it. I actually think the NY Times is an excellent overall newspaper, and I'm as surprised as anyone that they'd muck up a story so much -- especially as its editors are hyping how good their "fact checking" is and how every day people just can't compare.It started on Friday, when we noted that the NY Times was reporting that The Pirate Bay had lost its appeal in court. The only problem? It hadn't. Not even close. It may eventually lose the appeal, but that decision won't come for some time. It's true that other sources (including The Hollywood Reporter article that the NY Times reporter relied on) also got the story slightly screwed up, but that's no excuse for the NY Times to repeat blatantly incorrect information. The error appears to be caused by the confusion about the difference between a district (lower) court and the appeals (higher) court. The appeal is over whether or not the district court judge in the case was biased. So, as a part of that appeal, the district court told the appeals court that, no, its judge was not biased. This is to be expected. Did anyone think that the district court wouldn't defend its judge?
However, many people simply got confused, and when they read that a Stockholm district court said (in the appeals court) that the judge wasn't biased, they assumed that it was a court ruling, not just testimony/a filing from one of the participants. Still, you would think with a story that's received so much attention that the NY Times would check with someone first to make sure such a ruling actually came down.
On Monday, however, some of our readers noted that the NY Times had "updated" or "corrected" its story. However, the really amazing thing? Even after realizing that it got the story wrong, it still hasn't gotten the story right. Instead, they changed the first sentence from: "A Swedish court has denied the appeal of four men convicted of violating copyright law.... " into "A Swedish court has said that the judge who presided over the case of four men convicted of violating copyright law for their involvement in the Pirate Bay, an Internet file-sharing service, was not biased against them."
Okay, that's closer but still wrong. First, the NY Times left the headline as is, saying "Appeal Is Denied in Pirate Bay Case." Then, the current first sentence doesn't make any distinction at all between what the lower court said as a participant in the higher court case and what the higher court will ultimately pronounce as a ruling. In fact, given the headline, nearly everyone would still read that first sentence to say that the court has issued a ruling denying bias. The NY Times also added this correction line that would likely confuse most people, saying: "An earlier version of this report stated that the men's appeal had been denied." But reading the article, it still sounds like the appeal has been denied. Is it that difficult for a big journalistic endeavor like the NY Times to fact check a story? Even when told that the story is wrong, and then going and "correcting" it, they got the story wrong.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fact checking
Companies: ny times, the pirate bay
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Amazing
The corruption in big media is absolutely amazing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
in this case however?
I'd go with 'both' as the probable cause.
apply that as you will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
Simply reporting the case wrong would be a silly strategy. You are bound to be noticed and embarrassed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question
Yes, of course I make mistakes. Oops, too much sugar in my coffee, a mistake. But this is their JOB, and getting the story's most basic intersest, in this case the eventual outcome of the appeal/case, is priority numero uno.
I work in the IT field (don't we all). This isn't spilling sugar in my coffee. This is standing in front of a Dell server, pointing at it, and screaming "Look! An HP server!". Then having someone politiely tell me that it's a Dell server, at which point I continue pointing at it an scream "Fine, It's an IBM server!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-Sally Speed Cleaning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surprised?
...I am honestly surprised that the NY Times got this one so badly wrong, and that they've been so slow to do anything about it.
Why? This is par for the course for most newspapers, especially the NY Times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just like how they can fail ...
However, I believe the above comments as to the NYTimes attempt to intentionally distort the news are probably misplaced. There is always a slant, but intentional disinformation is not commonplace in the NYTimes, we aren't talking about fox news anchors whose only defense is that they may be mentally unbalanced to the point that they actually believe the lunacy that they espouse.
However, I guess that it is possible that the bastions of the copyright industry will start to get more and more perverse in their attempts to defend themselves. Backing an animal into a corner leads to unexpected results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I just like how they can fail ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Pirate Bay could win their appeal, beat the RIAA, and become legal worldwide, and the NYT would find a way to make it sound like Armageddon was about to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(sarcasm, duh)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wrong?
First, "A Swedish court has said..." This is True. The lower court said it. It wasn't a ruling (as I understand) but they still said it.
Second, "...The Hollywood Reporter said." - So are they just reporting on what another paper reported on? If so, the sentence is true. BUT it is scary to think of the recursion that could take place when reports report on what other reports say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wrong?
I'd be more willing to bet on Lazy Editor (changing ONE SENTENCE? sheesh.) more than Purposeful Obfuscation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Headline was fixed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]