It seems akin to a doctor who sits a patient down to discuss troubling test results, then later rethinks that analysis and mails the patient a more accurate interpretation of the results, without highlighting the changes. Many readers have strong feelings when a story gets a makeover without notice, and it’s no wonder. But giving readers insight into why some stories were substantively changed conveys openness and reduces suspicion that editors are trying to get away with something.
#Far cry 4 map editor stealth update
Putting a note on every update is unnecessary. When changes affect a story’s overall tone or make earlier facts obsolete, or when added context recasts a story, readers should be told. Readers, I believe, are far more sophisticated than they’re given credit for and want more transparency in stories that are shapeshifting before their eyes. This strikes me as an ossified policy in clear need of modernizing. Billboarding changes, he says, would be unwieldy to carry out and of no interest to most readers. They read it and go away,” said Phil Corbett, who oversees standards and ethics in the newsroom. “The vast majority of readers come to a story and get the best, most complete version we have. They argue that making such edits are a routine part of digital publishing - you edit a piece, publish it, then report more or add more context, then republish it again, on through the news cycle. Times editors have thus far rejected appeals to flag readers when stories are reworked, unless it’s a correction. She wrote about seven other such episodes.
My predecessor, Margaret Sullivan, signaled the changes to this piece.
This was in 2013, and I raise it not because there aren’t fresher examples (there are) but because this story was a cultural touchstone in the realm of what is often criticized as “stealth editing.” It remains among the most-viewed pieces in the history of the website NewsDiffs, the top destination for comparing versions of news articles. No editor’s note or other explanation for the changes was given. Seven hours later, after infuriated readers let loose, that version disappeared and a new story popped up with a less chauvinistic perspective emphasizing her exceptional career. In its first incarnation, the obit referred to 88-year-old Brill in the first paragraph as a woman who “made a mean beef stroganoff, followed her husband around from job to job and took eight years off to raise three children.” In secondary fashion, it mentioned that Brill was a pioneering scientist who invented a propulsion system that kept communications satellites in orbit. It involved an obituary about a rocket scientist named Yvonne Brill. IN the history of do-overs at The New York Times, there is one example that may seem of no large consequence but nonetheless infuriated readers.
0 kommentar(er)
