Comments on: Criticism corrected, and corrections criticized http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2009/11/11/criticism-corrected-and-corrections-criticized/ EthanZ's musings on Africa, media and international development Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:45:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mark Hurvitz http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2009/11/11/criticism-corrected-and-corrections-criticized/comment-page-1/#comment-1808900 Mark Hurvitz Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:53:50 +0000 http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=3378#comment-1808900 The question of speed versus accuracy is ancient. It was raised recently in an entirely different context: the Alliance for Continuing Rabbinic Education. There the study text was from Talmud Bavli, Baba Batra 21a: http://www.allianceforcre.org/acre-conferences/20089-acre-conference/limmud Raba further said: If there are two teachers of whom one gets on fast but with mistakes and the other slowly but without mistakes, we appoint the one who gets on fast and makes mistakes, since the mistakes correct themselves in time. R. Dimi from Nehardea on the other hand said that we appoint the one who goes slowly but makes no mistakes, for once a mistake is implanted it cannot be eradicated. The issue was raised in relation to the ability to tweet while studying. The question of speed versus accuracy is ancient. It was raised recently in an entirely different context: the Alliance for Continuing Rabbinic Education. There the study text was from Talmud Bavli, Baba Batra 21a:

http://www.allianceforcre.org/acre-conferences/20089-acre-conference/limmud

Raba further said: If there are two teachers of whom one gets on fast but with mistakes and the other slowly but without mistakes, we appoint the one who gets on fast and makes mistakes, since the mistakes correct themselves in time.

R. Dimi from Nehardea on the other hand said that we appoint the one who goes slowly but makes no mistakes, for once a mistake is implanted it cannot be eradicated.

The issue was raised in relation to the ability to tweet while studying.

]]> By: Renovating Digital Education « The Progressive Internal Critique http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2009/11/11/criticism-corrected-and-corrections-criticized/comment-page-1/#comment-1801822 Renovating Digital Education « The Progressive Internal Critique Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:17:21 +0000 http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=3378#comment-1801822 [...] educational broadcasting expands access to intellectual entrepreneurs.  Like the recent call for slow news, and attempts to periodize the last few decades as a problematic “information age” we must [...]

]]> By: Amy Gahran http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2009/11/11/criticism-corrected-and-corrections-criticized/comment-page-1/#comment-1800083 Amy Gahran Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:15:42 +0000 http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=3378#comment-1800083 Hi, Ethan Thanks for doing a great job of explaining this CJR gaffe. Today has sure been a banner day for CJR, in terms of lack of transparent corrections in their media criticism. Today CJR ran a piece by Megan Garber (http://bit.ly/4duGKK) deriding Spot.us for delivering "disappointing" journalism in an environmental story that the NYT ran today. In her very last paragraph, hidden behind an unnecessary page jump, Garber finally mentioned that the Spot.us reporter had published a lot of quality information in her blog on Spot.us, and that the Times' editing of the piece (which was out of Spot.us control) did not convey the depth or quality of this material. Several journos (myself included) took Garber to task for this approach in the comments. After much defensiveness, Garber begrudgingly acknowledged that her framing of the story was flawed, and she added a small "addition" (she wouldn't call it a correction) a few paragraphs from the top. The story's headline, subhead, and lead still clearly imply that Spot.us and the reporter didn't do a good enough job. I explained to her how to use strikethrough tags. She didn't seem interested. What could CJR possibly have to gain by being defensive and opaque/obscure about corrections? Amy Gahran Hi, Ethan

Thanks for doing a great job of explaining this CJR gaffe.

Today has sure been a banner day for CJR, in terms of lack of transparent corrections in their media criticism.

Today CJR ran a piece by Megan Garber (http://bit.ly/4duGKK) deriding Spot.us for delivering “disappointing” journalism in an environmental story that the NYT ran today.

In her very last paragraph, hidden behind an unnecessary page jump, Garber finally mentioned that the Spot.us reporter had published a lot of quality information in her blog on Spot.us, and that the Times’ editing of the piece (which was out of Spot.us control) did not convey the depth or quality of this material.

Several journos (myself included) took Garber to task for this approach in the comments. After much defensiveness, Garber begrudgingly acknowledged that her framing of the story was flawed, and she added a small “addition” (she wouldn’t call it a correction) a few paragraphs from the top. The story’s headline, subhead, and lead still clearly imply that Spot.us and the reporter didn’t do a good enough job.

I explained to her how to use strikethrough tags. She didn’t seem interested.

What could CJR possibly have to gain by being defensive and opaque/obscure about corrections?

Amy Gahran

]]> By: Sameer Padania http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2009/11/11/criticism-corrected-and-corrections-criticized/comment-page-1/#comment-1799737 Sameer Padania Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:44:06 +0000 http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=3378#comment-1799737 It's almost surreal (and increasingly untenable, both in terms of good professional practice and of technology) that news organisations don't routinely do this kind of versioning, not only to preserve transparency around errors of fact, but also in order to do the best kind of advocacy for the journalistic profession - to lay bare the nature of the process of information-gathering, fact-checking and verification, accretion, editing, and so on. Having access to this would alter the conversation about how journalistic communication happens, and what of its values we need to preserve, adapt and promote in the information environment we find ourselves right now. It’s almost surreal (and increasingly untenable, both in terms of good professional practice and of technology) that news organisations don’t routinely do this kind of versioning, not only to preserve transparency around errors of fact, but also in order to do the best kind of advocacy for the journalistic profession – to lay bare the nature of the process of information-gathering, fact-checking and verification, accretion, editing, and so on. Having access to this would alter the conversation about how journalistic communication happens, and what of its values we need to preserve, adapt and promote in the information environment we find ourselves right now.

]]>