Washington Post Learns The Importance Of Fact Checking... And Reading The Comments

from the keep-up dept

Fri, Dec 4th 2009 5:31pm — Mike Masnick

On November 26th (Thanksgiving), the Washington Post put up an article about the group Public Enemy and its efforts to help the homeless in DC. Nice enough. However, there was one oddity in the article. It claimed that the band's famous song 911 is a Joke was about the attacks of September 11th. Yes, this is a song that was released in 1990. And if you've ever heard it, you know that it's about the phone number you call for emergencies. I mean the first line of the song is "I dialed 911 a long time ago....".

Now, I guess this is a mistake that anyone could make if they were totally unfamiliar with Public Enemy or its music -- but you would think that someone writing an article about the band would at least learn a little about the music it released. Furthermore, we're constantly told about how the mainstream press is important because they have fact checkers. Apparently, they took Thanksgiving off.

But, a bigger point is brought forth by Mathew Ingram who points out that people in the comments of the article pointed out the mistake really quickly and it took an entire week for the Washington Post to get around to making a correction.

Now, everyone makes mistakes now and again, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it does demonstrate a few things. Just claiming you have fact checkers doesn't make you significantly more accurate at times. Separately, we've pointed out in the past how bad newspapers seem to be with actually engaging with commenters on their site, and this highlights why they're making a big mistake. Yes, it's work. Yes, sometimes there can be a lot of junk in the comments, but you can also learn a lot -- such as when you've made a huge mistake.

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: 911, comments, fact checking, public enemy
Companies: washington post

46 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 5:36pm

Funny sidenote: When I try to get to the article from the link on the comments page, I get a stupid registration wall.

Also, the Washington Post raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. I will be back in 7 days to make sure my comment is correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 5:37pm

Nine One One
Did they just google the lyrics? Nobody says "nine one one" when refering to "nine eleven."

Bonus idiot points, 911 is still a joke in DC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 5:56pm

Apparently there aren't any fact checkers at techdirt either.

It doesn't take more than a second to realize that the correction was published one week later, and appeared in the same "local living" section that appears (are you ready) once a week (every Thursday).

More moral outrage where none is merited?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 5:58pm
  
  Re:
  Hi, this is the internet, where corrections can be published within minutes. Don't get lost in the tubes on your way out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 6:30pm
  
  Re:
  "It doesn't take more than a second to realize that the correction was published one week later, and appeared in the same "local living" section that appears (are you ready) once a week (every Thursday)."
  
  Oh yeah, we don't want to forget the people who have the "Thursday Only" subscriptions. Good point.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The weekly section is like a monthly magazine. They printed the correction in the same section as they made the mistake in, which is an "insert" into the regular paper.
    
    The correction online would be nice, but being that it is a print paper, putting the correction in print is the right choice.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "The weekly section is like a monthly magazine."
      
      DDo you have a 'monthly only' service? Do you even subscribe to a paper?
      
      Damn dude, try harder.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        DUDE, please.
        
        The Local Living is a supplimental section added once a week into the paper. It isn't there every day.
        
        The made an error in one edition, and published a retraction in the next edition. Gee, Wired does that, but because of lead time it can take 3 months. I guess Chris Anderson is a bad man as a result, right?
        
        Sheesh, you guys never stop, do you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, we don't. It's a fundamental error that should not have been allowed in the first place. It takes only a couple of minutes to check something like that, but the writer couldn't be bothered to do so. Yes, the retraction was in print a week later, but it could have been made online immediately. That is the point being made. Terribly sorry you got so worked up that this was pointed out, but it does not invalidate the point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2009 @ 3:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I love when you guys just don't get it.
        
        The online edition is nothing but the stories that have made it to the print edition. The correction made it online at the same time it made it into print. There is no special online edition.
        
        All I can say is if you guy are going to fight so hard about something like this, it makes me understand why you spend so long yelling and screaming about other stuff.
        
        This is such a basic idea, I can't imagine why you guys are so clueless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2009 @ 6:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No. It's you who doesn't get it. The Web is not paper. You don't have to wait one day to issue an erratum in the Web.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2009 @ 8:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't get it: The web is just a "reprint" of the paper, it isn't an entity onto itself. What is on the web is what is in the paper, on the day it appears in the paper.
        
        *sigh* I think you are just being an idiot to bait me. You can't be that naturally stupid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2009 @ 8:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, you don't get it. They could have immediately added some sidebar with a correction or added something that clearly indicates this is not part of the paper on the web that corrects the problem. People don't want to wait a week for a correction and if the newspaper insists that somehow being a copy of the paper justifies waiting a week then the newspaper will lose customers because the customers aren't convinced no matter how much you or the newspaper thinks its justified. The newspaper can continue thinking somehow your argument justifies their delay and they will continue to lose money as a result. Am I now speaking your language?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2009 @ 8:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        See, you have this attitude that you can tell customers what they want. You think that if you can tell customers that you have some bogus reason for not updating the paper immediately they should automatically accept your bogus reason and continue to be customers. It doesn't work that way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2009 @ 9:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hi, web pages have this cool ability to be edited after they are published.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2009 @ 9:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...and then the web pages wouldn't match the print world. Should they immediately run after their clients with a printed change too?
        
        Me thinks you guys aren't paying attention. Perhaps Mike can invite Chris Anderson over to explain how they do corrections at Wired (3 months later).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2009 @ 10:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "...and then the web pages wouldn't match the print world."
        
        they can put the original print in one window and put the correction in another. It's not rocket science, it's common sense. Stop making a galaxy out of an atom.
        
        "Should they immediately run after their clients with a printed change too?"
        
        No, they simply correct the printed version during the next edition.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2009 @ 11:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "...and then the web pages wouldn't match the print world."
        
        And?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2009 @ 5:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What's hilarious is that if the band sued for libel the webpage would have been changed instantly.
        
        I'd love to see the Washington Post try to defend the delay in court, otherwise.
        
        "Oh, yes, we were notified of the issue right away, but we wanted to make sure that the misinformation and libelous statements were thoroughly accurate with all other versions first!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Original Coward, 6 Dec 2009 @ 7:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's amazing watching one idiot argue with himself.
        
        The band argued, there would be a retraction made remarkably in a similar location and place to the way it was done this time. Notice, and it's important, that the original story was NOT edited.
        
        You guys will never learn that the internet isn't all that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DS, 7 Dec 2009 @ 9:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I just wanted to see how narrow this post would be. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, god forbid that an accusation that could get your paper charged with libel require immediate clarification.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They could easily have put the correction in the online article immediately and then put it in the vestigial version whenever it finds its way out. I mean, I understand that these days the stone tablet edition (released biennially) is fully 75% errata. A bit of professionalism would be in order, and I'd think professionalism would dictate that the correction be made in all versions, as soon as possible in each individual medium.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Except that there is no need for a "choice." False dichotomies are fun.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Robert Ring (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 6:42pm
  
  Re:
  ...Um. What "moral" do you see him talking about, and where is this "outrage" you speak of?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:32pm

NICKELBACK SUCKS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin Carson, 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:42pm

Newspapers do have fact checkers...
They're called bloggers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pwdrskir (profile), 5 Dec 2009 @ 11:19am

Shifting Paradigms
The point is that the WP does not understand the paradigm has shifted. It does not matter when a weekly print edition is printed, the readers are now reading 24/7/365.

All news organization that want to survive should be embracing an online strategy. It is clear that the old, broken, outdated business models that are preventing progress will go the way of the buggy whip industry because even when the new is attempted, it is done so with contempt and neglected, as in this case.

“If you want to make minor, incremental changes and improvements, work on practices, behavior or attitude. But if you want to make significant, quantum improvement, work on paradigms.” - Stephen R. Covey - The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2009 @ 2:51pm
  
  Re: Shifting Paradigms
  Nope, you miss it: You think the paradigm has shifted, but they have not shifted theirs, and you expect them to operate under your new rules. Sorry bub, the world doesn't work that way. Their game, their rules. If you don't like their rules, don't read them and don't support them. But you cannot force them to live up to your rules, it's their game.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2009 @ 3:38pm
    
    Re: Re: Shifting Paradigms
    No one said anything about "forcing" them. We are talking about pointing out their backwards thinking, stupidity, and outdated techniques.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2009 @ 5:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Shifting Paradigms
      They are only outdated from your point of view, a part of the audience with the attention span of caffeinated fleas.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2009 @ 6:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Shifting Paradigms
        Or, you know, the audience that knows how the internet works.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2009 @ 6:00pm
    
    Re: Re: Shifting Paradigms
    They don't live up to my rules, I sue them for libel.
    
    I'd imagine that their "game" would be dropped quite quickly after that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- NattyFido (profile), 5 Dec 2009 @ 3:00pm
  
  Re: Shifting Paradigms
  * Pedant alert *
  
  Surely that should be 24/7/52? Or 24/365?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - notloggedin, 5 Dec 2009 @ 6:08pm
    
    Re: Re: Shifting Paradigms
    Extra pedant: 24/7 covers the whole calendar, unless there's a day of the week I don't know about.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 5 Dec 2009 @ 8:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Shifting Paradigms
      Super pedant: if 24/7 covers the whole calendar, then so does 24. I would say 24 hours a day leaves the possibility that not every day is covered (though every hour of those days that are included). 24/7 means every day of the week, but perhaps not every week. On the other hand, 365 days is 52 weeks plus one day, so 24/7/52 isn't quite good enough either. 24/7/52.142857... doesn't have much ring to it, and 24-7-52 1/7 isn't much better.
      
      I think 24/365 is best. The only time that's inadequate is for leap periods of time (ie days and seconds). But 24/7 still sounds better.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jason Buberel (profile), 5 Dec 2009 @ 7:34pm
    
    Re: Re: Shifting Paradigms
    Perhaps we should be using crontab notation:
    
    * * * * * johnqpublic /usr/bin/consuming-news-content
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Dec 2009 @ 8:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Shifting Paradigms
      ...and if jonqpublic was paying for it, perhaps you have have:
      
      * * * * * reporter /usr/bin/updated-news-content24-365
      
      But since most people are freeloaders, they get access to what is paid for in the print edition, nothing else.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Dec 2009 @ 11:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Shifting Paradigms
        Because it's obviously so expensive to correct something online.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Dec 2009 @ 2:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shifting Paradigms
        Actually, it is.
        
        Again, because you don't want to understand how things end up on their website, you aren't going to understand why the correction came out when it did. I can't stop you from being a moron.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Dec 2009 @ 3:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shifting Paradigms
        Actually, it isn't. I can't stop you from being a troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Dec 2009 @ 3:02pm

These 38 POS (now 39) comments point out exactly why no one really reads comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dementia (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 3:47am
  
  Re:
  Actually some of do, despite the fact that anonymous cowards who feel we, the consumers, should adapt to the newspapers' paradigm tend to bore the hell out of us.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 7 Dec 2009 @ 4:37am
  
  Re:
  Ok, we know you are busy. Here is a suggestion:
  
  1) Attach an RSS reader to the comments on your newspaper's website (I assume you work for one, it has a website, and it has an RSS feed for the comments).
  2) Filter the reader's results for "error" and "mistake".
  3) Read all of these - they may pay off.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2009 @ 5:37am
    
    Re: Re:
    Again, it doesn't matter - the content of the website is a mirror of the printed paper, and the section that correction came up in is printed once a week.
    
    Simple, no?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2009 @ 9:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh, I get it, the online version is hooked up to a magical device that just instantly copies the print version.
      
      Oh, wait, someone has to put it there. That some someone is perfectly capable of changing it.
      
      Keep grasping at stupidity, it's amusing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]