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

Fri, Mar 25th 2011 12:32pm — Mike Masnick

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"?

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

36 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Chris Rhodes (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 12:13pm

But . . . but . . . journalism!
If we don't all pay up now, we might have to get our news from sources not as thorough at fact-checking as the NYT!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 12:38pm

Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
Seriously. Way to add value, guys.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 12:42pm

Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
"Seriously. Way to add value, guys."

There's value in fiction....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 12:47pm

Re: Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
What did you say? I seem to have used up my 20 DH clicks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 12:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
Ooooh, a Dark Helmet paywall would be awesome. You wouldn't have to pay with money, just the pain of being forced to watch S&M anime between different species of animals....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2011 @ 12:56pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
Which species and must they be different?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2011 @ 12:58pm

Mike you have totally missed the point of the pay wall. It is to keep crap in and our poor eyes from having to read said crap. So really the pay wall is an awesome idea. One less thing people can point to that isn't really fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 12:59pm

A two-fer!
Now we can be lied to and feel guilty about it at the same time! =]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 12:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
It's a regular rotation. Anything and everything that went on Noah's Ark....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steven (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 1:02pm

I'm quite sure the NYT will preserve their stellar reputation by printing a front page retraction and apology.

(must... keep... straight... face...)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2011 @ 1:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
Are we including non factual animals? It seems wrong to use anime and only be able to use animals we can prove existed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cseiter (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 1:07pm

Re: A two-fer!
When did the NYT become my ex-wife?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DS, 25 Mar 2011 @ 1:14pm

Yes, but did they feel guilt about it afterwards?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David Liu (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 1:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
I'm pretty sure S&M anime with animals would require the use of some tentacle monsters...

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 thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 1:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
In the spirit of the New York Times, we can totally just make up bullshit Chinese animals....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Publius (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 1:21pm

Bad Journalism is killing Journalism!

Just imaging the bumper sticker revenues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Berenerd (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 1:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
RED!!! RED!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fickelbra (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 1:27pm

Not surprised
I was confused when you guys did a follow up on the story to begin with... It just wreaked of third-party word of mouth nonsense. Seems a pretty damn easy thing to confirm or deny, and since no one could confirm it... Not blaming you either though; one would hope they could remotely trust an article from NYT. But we all know the name of the game these days, it's not about who has the most thorough story, just who announced it first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 1:37pm

Re: Re: A two-fer!
+1

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 thread ]
Greg G (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 1:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
Don't post it on Craigslist or in Arizona....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 1:43pm

Maybe NY Times has their fact checking department spending their resources on checking whether you, in fact, did pay for the paywall or if you are a cheapskate teenager or an unemployed bum or something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2011 @ 2:02pm

What is really funny here Mike is that you were more than willing to run with it, becoming their partner in the story by parroting it like truth.

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 thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 2:20pm

Re:
This proves that Mike is obviously a member of the Illuminati. Good catch! Now pass the tinfoil.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 2:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
OR we could have the Kirin of the economy get S&M'ed by that mythical creature, the ethical banker. Afrter all, we all have our kinks...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 2:35pm

Re:
Because it was clearly April 1st that day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 2:46pm

I still prefer the other news outlets...
where I can get my poorly researched anecdotal evidence for free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2011 @ 3:56pm

Fox news just repeated this at ~5:45 central time so it must be true!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vastrightwing, 25 Mar 2011 @ 4:03pm

Remember these?
LOL, and the New York Times thinks a pay wall will help? LOL when they have other problems like: Jayson Blair, Maureen Dowd, Walter Duranty, Hassan Fattah, Jack Hitt, the "Plastic Turkey" story, etc. I'd say their "fact" checking is a little on the poor side, to put it mildly. I don't bother reading the New York Times since I never know where they're coming from. They often leave out facts that lie just as much as the facts they make up. Consider this part of your plan to fix the times. Try putting integrity back into reporting... then... maybe they will come.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mrtraver (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 6:03pm

value added here!
Maybe they add value by giving the factual story only to the ones who pay and go through the gate instead of going through the gaping holes in the paywall.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bugmenot (profile), 26 Mar 2011 @ 7:27am

New York Times Terrorists
Actually, this is just a simple case of truth terrorism. The army of news journalists have been trained in liberal institutions without any sense of ethics or morality. Journalists are now at the same level as Osama bin Laden.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe (profile), 26 Mar 2011 @ 10:06am

Re: Re: But . . . but . . . journalism!
I'm thinking that maybe they are adding value - if you pay them, you get the stories that are actually true!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gregg L. DesElms (profile), 26 Mar 2011 @ 10:17am

The NY Times is obviously reading this web site
Today, the NY Times has added the following beneath the
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2011 @ 12:58pm

Actually they do have something like that.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2011 @ 2:43pm

Re: Re:
In fact, we've called the NY Times out for this same thing in the past.

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 thread ]
okwhen (profile), 27 Mar 2011 @ 6:10am

Hopefully we are learning from past mistakes
Their is no such thing as new networks today. They have replicated Vietnam's radio personality Hanoi Hannah a.k.a. Dragon Lady and are producing nothing more than propagandist crap. People seen to take sides, for instance against Fox news, however, they all seem to be mirror images to me. Let's face it, without independent news free from government and corporate control, then we will only see and hear more of the same. Therefor, quoting the news without independent sources is only propagating the propaganda and becoming part of the Hanoi Hannah machine.

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 thread ]
Benjamin (profile), 28 Mar 2011 @ 5:40am

Well done.
This is the difference.

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 thread ]