Should Have Known Better Than To Trust The NY Times: China 'Protest' Hangups Story Is Bunk
from the they-want-me-to-pay-for-this? dept
Earlier this week, we wrote about a report in the NY Times of people in China having their phone calls cut off mid-call when someone says the word "protest." In our comments, many people questioned whether or not this was true, and with good reason. It now turns out that the story appears to be complete bunk. A bunch of folks in China have been testing this and can find no evidence to support it. In fact, one of the reporters who worked on that article commented on that link to say that he, too, tested it and could not confirm it. Yet... the NY Times published it anyway.Yes, we should have known better than to trust a NY Times trend piece that opens with a cute and perfect anecdote. I apologize.
In fact, we've called the NY Times out for this same thing in the past. They love to start stories with "perfect" anecdotes that do not appear to have much basis in reality. But they want us to sign up for their paywall to pay for this kind of "reporting"?
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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: censorship, china, fact checking, journalism, protests
Companies: ny times
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But . . . but . . . journalism!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
There's value in fiction....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
At least I hope so; I cringe at the thought of rabbits and bears doing S&M in the woods when we're not looking...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A two-fer!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A two-fer!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A two-fer!
Reminds me of a Shoe comic I kept around.
Cosmo: Bartender, I'd like something cold and loaded with vodka!
Bartender: Pal, have I got an ex-wife for you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(must... keep... straight... face...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just imaging the bumper sticker revenues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not surprised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As I said in the original thread, "it could be an example of people trying to hate monger on China with little to back it up". Mike, you aren't a stupid person (perhaps a little ignorant at times, but that is okay). Why would you run with a story in the first place? Could you not see it as the third hand tale that it really was? Plenty of people in the comments saw it.
Why so fast to jump on the bandwagon? Perhaps it's something you support?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He keeps calling them out for it, but yet he is still more than willing to use them as a source?
Mike, are you an information sadomasochist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I still prefer the other news outlets...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember these?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
value added here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New York Times Terrorists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The NY Times is obviously reading this web site
China story:
Editors' Note: March 26, 2011
An article on Tuesday about Chinese censorship of digital communications began with a description of two interrupted cellphone calls, which were cited as possible examples of �a host of evidence over the past several weeks� that the authorities were increasing their efforts out of concern that antigovernment sentiment might spread from Arab countries. In one call, a Beijing entrepreneur lost his cellphone connection after he used the English word �protest� twice. In the second, a call was lost after the speaker twice used the Chinese term for protest.
The article did not point out that in both cases, the recipients of the calls were in the Beijing bureau of The New York Times. Because scrutiny of press communications could easily be higher than for those of the public at large, the calls could not be assumed to represent a broader trend; therefore, those examples should not have been given such prominence in the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suspect it depends a bit where you call from in china. They don't monitor all the lines. Also, you have to trigger the mechanism in some way. Once we managed to accidentally trigger it on the word google. After it was triggered we ware not bale to say the word without being cut of. It was funny watching my wife explain to the person on the other line what not to say without being cut of. It tock tree calls :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hopefully we are learning from past mistakes
I just sent Mr. Lam with Gizmodo my dislike with on of his editors Jesus Diaz for publishing an article called �chernobyl-kids-video-is-one-part-unnerving-two-parts-sad-and-three-parts-awesome� and making completely inaccurate statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well done.
I questioned the story, and I got flamed for it - and that's the difference. Some people are willing to swallow the line wholesale, and without question. Those folks, and bloggers with lower standards never would have revisited this story. They would have buried it when they discovered the problem. Kudos to Mike for making sure the truth is fairly represented, regardless of the "cost."
...And in this case, at least by my measure, the "cost" is greater respect from yours truly - and I already had a great deal of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]