i think the whole idea of purposly misinterpeting the interview had to do with the line that went something along this -> "I asked her to repeat the interview back to me and i told her that i was not feeling guilty for making PGP ect., but when it got to print, the editors decided to change it around...". If that's not purposly changing his words around, i dunno what is.
He also made it very clear that he thought the mistake was due to overwork, and the general tone of his article was not critical to the Washington Post, but rather trying to clear up a misunderstanding.
Zimmerman comes across as constructive and considered precisely because he spends more time trying to clear up the facts rather than point the finger at everyone in sight, blame the establishment and cry conspiracy at the top of his voice. It's precisely because his contributions to discussions are so considered that he has reached a position where his opinions carry a lot of weight.
Anyone who was expecting a similarly considered reaction from Slashdot (as a whole, not individuals), was obviously being a little optimistic. Most of the posts seemed to indicate that the most people got out of Zimmerman's letter was that the Washington Post had misrepresented him - they then went on their (somewhat predictable) anti-WP crusade as they perceived one of their heroes to have been slighted.
Thank goodness the hero himself has the presence of mind to calm things down before they get out of hand. But I doubt the reaction did much to endear the Slashdot crowd to him. At least he knows where to go if he needs to rally some unconsidered fanatical support.
Disclaimer: I am not making comments directed at any individual post, but at a theme that ran through a number of posts in the other thread, so don't take it personally.
I agree with you, but I think (fear?) that it doesn't come from some conspiration against crypto, but from the fact that often newspapers tend to "correct" reality a bit in order to make their articles sound more "strong". I've witnessed this happen a couple of times. After all, normal, flat life and feelings are a bit too "grey" to attract the public. A nice black/white strikes much more....
newspapers tend to "correct" reality a bit in order to make their articles sound more "strong".
So, shouldn't media be required to publish a little disclaimer somewhere, "The events in these reports have been dramatized for theatrical purposes." I've long been wary of the media's attemps to blur the line between reality and fantasy, particularly in a democracy, and even more so during a crisis. Sure it makes big bucks for Hollywood to get people to suspend disbelief, but that's not appropriate for an organ that claims to be some journal of record.
"So, shouldn't media be required to publish a little disclaimer somewhere,"
People who believe the media blindly deserve to be as stupid as they want them to be, after all, they are in the business of entertainment, since that sells product, which makes money, which lets them produce more entertainment.
And the imprecision about them and they is deliberate. The industry wants you to be maleable and stupid so they can sell more, and the people want to be able to be stupid and maleable because that is easier than being introspective and learned.
Disclamer: I am a rapid believer in freedom, free markets and the right of people to be this stupid, I just wish they wouldn't vote.
But the question is who changed the words around. If the reporter got it right and an anonymous coward of an editor changed it to suit his/her idea of what the herd wanted to hear, flaming the reporter isn't the answer.
The reason for most editorial cuts in newspaper stories is not to give them a "slant" but to make them fit into available space on the page.
Newspapers lay out pages by putting in the ads first, then filling the remaining white space (called the "news hole") with stories. Often there are more stories the boss editors feel are important than there is space to run all of them full length, so some or all of the stories get trimmed to fit. Decisions on what words to cut out of which stories are not made by a group of cackling [liberal; conservative; Zionist; law enforcement] conspirators in a back room, but by overworked (and usually underpaid) wordsmiths watching the clock tick toward the moment when the presses are scheduled to run. These people do not have the power to decide which stories get covered and which do not. They are the hands-on people responsible for getting the paper put together on time every day; the sergeants of the newspaper business, you might say.
Deadline pressure combined with the necessity to make the paper fit as much information as possible onto each (expensive) square inch of newsprint is to blame for at least 99% of all perceived newspaper copyediting errors.
The copyeditor who is making the cuts is also, in most cases, proofreading the stories, checking facts, and writing headlines. It is a brutal job, and out of the hundreds of stories a big newspaper like The Post runs in every edition, chances are approximately 100% that at least a few cuts will be made that are less than perfect.
A big advantage Internet news purveyors have over print news sources, and over broadcast sources too, who have "X" minutes of time to fill, and that's it, is that it costs effectively nothing to run 5 extra paragraphs of text on the WWW if those paragraphs will add more depth or accuracy to a story.
Hands-on, daily deadline copyediting is a brutal job carried out not by "anonymous cowards" but by people who do their best to make stories as accurate and readable as possible in too little time, usually on a copy desk that is a few people short not only because of recent media layoffs, but because competent copyeditors are always in short supply. The job takes an immense range of knowledge, powerful research skills, and a willingness to accept attacks for every mistake made while foregoing public credit when everything goes "just right."
Robin, your defense of copy editors and headline writers is eloquent, but way-off IMO.
I have seen, too many times, bias creep its way into copy editing and (ESPECIALLY!) headline
writing decisions. Occasionally (see Slashdot's unfortunate coverage of Wired's "coverage" of the supposed "raid on e-gold" -- which would have been a fine story except that not only did it not happen, both Wired's headline writer and Slashdot's either didn't read the text of their own story or purposely chose to distort that text to make up a better headline) -- the facts be damned. I'm sure that competent copyeditors are always in short supply, but I'd think that even the INcompetent ones might read stories before slapping a headline on 'em and inviting my withering sarcasm.
What I'm disputing here is your "99%" estimate above. I'd say that AT LEAST 5% of mistakes are due to bias (not gonna get into whether there's media bias, or how various media outlets are biased, but we'd probably disagree on that, too). I have seen and informally studied headline & copy-editing errors for DECADES, and over the years the pattern of distortion has been more indicative of agendas than honest accidents in WAY more than 1% of cases. The mistakes AREN'T random (analysts at www.mrc.org and www.fair.org would probably both agree with me on that point, and they disagree on just-about everything).
Again, your eloquence is appreciated (especially by any copy-editors who are reading all this, and I'm sure their job sucks sometimes -- like all jobs can suck!) but your estimate is orders of magnitude off, IMO. Also, if incompetent headline writers really AREN'T anonymous cowards, then there's one over at Wired whose actual name I'd appreciate knowing -- so far all I've got is 'not Declan,' which (even with media-layoffs) doesn't really narrow things down too much, does it?
JMR
The reason for most editorial cuts in newspaper stories
We're not talking about a cut here. The problem isn't that bits of his side were dropped, but that he was misrepresented. In the original article [slashdot.org] he says
The article states that as the inventor of PGP, I was "overwhelmed with feelings of guilt". I never implied that in the interview, and specifically went out of my way to emphasize to her that that was not the case
Robin, anyone could think of a lot better ways to cut "feelings of anger and grief" than "overwhelmed by guilt".
I don't think this was a deliberate attempt to slant the story, but it sure looks like an unconscious one. That is, the editor was in a hurry when reading the story, and interpreted it according to his expectations -- as guilt, not grief...
By the way, the URL for the published version
of the Bill Gates hit piece has moved from
where it was two years ago when I wrote the above
cited essay. The
new location is here [time.com].
I read the post often, I live in DC. Their editorial slant has gotten more and more extreme lately. I would have given them the benefit of the doubt a year ago. But they seemed hell-bent on becoming the mouthpiece of this administration even before this incident. Since? Even the unsigned editorials in the op-ed page have been rank and file in line with a certain ideology. Not one I share. They don't like people getting upset at their editorial slant? Maybe they should go back to unbiased reporting.
But they seemed hell-bent on becoming the mouthpiece of this administration even before this incident.
An interesting way of looking at the media is not that they're biased (which they are--they are mostly Statists), but more importantly, that they want to be considered insiders, part of the action. They become "courtiers" in that they surround the centers of power with sycophancy and general toadiness. That is why they come off sounding like the government's own Ministry of Propaganda.
You might consider telling us poor uninformed techies where you do go for tech news. Slashdot is my mainstay for tech news, and all my backup sites are linked on slashdot. I could care less about criticism - you've stated your opinion its yours and thats fine. But if I agree with you (or even if I don't) I may be interested in visiting your preferred tech news sites. That way you can make your statement, contribute, pull eyes away from slashdot and help your favored sites all at the same time.
At mediadishonesty.com [mediadishonesty.com] there is a media dishonesty rating system. See the link standard dishonesty rating system [edwarddebono.com]. As a rating system it is insightful and tough. The author claims a score of 30 bad points is reasonable.
In general i think most press dishonesty is in pursuit of the aim to be more interesting. That's the main selling value. Political agendas are much less important to press than most people think.
Useful moderation system for Slashdot? Very valuable, yes. Question is how. Too heavy for full use.
I don't think it's as sinister a plot as the WP editors trying to get online encryption banned - it's probably just an innocent "lets prints a great human interest STORY and sell lots of papers" - as in the old saw, "Dog bites man is not news, but man bites dog is" - to publish a piece about PZ defending our rights to online privacy isn't news - he's been doing that for many years, but to paint an image of "Oh! Encryption author and advocate feels great guilt over career" - now that's an interesting STORY (albeit false as can be). In short, the WP editors should be working for the National Inquiror or writing for daytime TV. It's not a commie plot - just attract attention, boost circulation, sell advertising, facts be damned. You know the corporate mindset drill.
The stories printed in this newspaper (or any media for that matter) are for entertainment purposes ONLY, and are not to be construed as a truthful representation of reality in any way.
On second thought, a well informed public being essential for the success of a DEMOCRACY, maybe it IS a commie plot.
In short, the WP editors should be working for the National Inquiror [sic --LR]
I remember reading in US News & World Report a few years ago that the National Enquirer actually has stricter standards regarding verification of sources and other fact checking than the NY Times/Washington Post.
[Goes to USN&WR's site...]
Here's a link where you can purchase [newsbank.com] [newsbank.com] the article in question for $2.
Google has a cached [google.com] [google.com] version.
As an aside, do you think US News might sue Google over things like this? I've always thought that their caching scheme might be of questionable legality (what with the DMCA and all).
I'm betting there was political motivation behind it. Phil might be called an 'opinion maker' when it comes to encryption. To portray him as feeling guilt over PGP helps in the push to pass anti-encryption laws. I've had limited experience with the press, but even in my case they always dressed it up to fit a 'message'. What do you think the message was in this case?
As far as Phils comment about good intentioned politicians: bullshit. Politicians deceive all the time. For example, nobody smiles that much while talking politics.;) I bet Phil just didn't want to say because he knows the audiences sensibilities as well as the Post does.
Playing it like Bush: "Oh, did I say Crusade? Oh, I didn't mean it like that... and how dare you for implying such a thing!"
Either that or he's a> naive or b> afraid of being ridiculed as a conspiracy guy.
"the article had no such statement or implication when she read it to me."
"I can only speculate that her editors must have taken some inappropriate liberties in abbreviating my feelings to such an inaccurate soundbite."
"It appears that this nuance of reasoning was lost on someone at the Washington Post. I imagine this may be caused by this newspaper's staff being stretched to their limits last week."
"I have always enjoyed good relations with the press over the past decade, especially with the Washington Post. I'm sure they will get it right next time."
If anyone is to blame for the change it's the editors, not the writer. And the editors are probably pretty stressed right now. I doubt they were being malicious.
You may have heard of the principle "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity". Maybe that should be changed to include stress, exhaustion, and emotional turmoil.
I agree with you that this seems to imply "purpose", but I think that people were most specifically upset with a bias against string cryptography, which I'm not sure is evident from what he said. It was definately not good journalism to edit this the way they did, but the editors intent may have been to either make the story more interesting, or possibly they just made the mistake while trying to make the story sound consistent. Of course this isn't good journalism, and perhaps somewhat dishonest, but I don't think that there is a definate implication of dishonesty or bias.
Of course, given the politics of the situation, I'd be playing down the post's mistake too, if I were Zimmerman.
hmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:hmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Zimmerman comes across as constructive and considered precisely because he spends more time trying to clear up the facts rather than point the finger at everyone in sight, blame the establishment and cry conspiracy at the top of his voice. It's precisely because his contributions to discussions are so considered that he has reached a position where his opinions carry a lot of weight.
Anyone who was expecting a similarly considered reaction from Slashdot (as a whole, not individuals), was obviously being a little optimistic. Most of the posts seemed to indicate that the most people got out of Zimmerman's letter was that the Washington Post had misrepresented him - they then went on their (somewhat predictable) anti-WP crusade as they perceived one of their heroes to have been slighted.
Thank goodness the hero himself has the presence of mind to calm things down before they get out of hand. But I doubt the reaction did much to endear the Slashdot crowd to him. At least he knows where to go if he needs to rally some unconsidered fanatical support.
Disclaimer: I am not making comments directed at any individual post, but at a theme that ran through a number of posts in the other thread, so don't take it personally.
(mod parent up) Re:hmm. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:(mod parent up) Re:hmm. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, shouldn't media be required to publish a little disclaimer somewhere, "The events in these reports have been dramatized for theatrical purposes." I've long been wary of the media's attemps to blur the line between reality and fantasy, particularly in a democracy, and even more so during a crisis. Sure it makes big bucks for Hollywood to get people to suspend disbelief, but that's not appropriate for an organ that claims to be some journal of record.
As stupid as we wanna be (Score:1)
And the imprecision about them and they is deliberate. The industry wants you to be maleable and stupid so they can sell more, and the people want to be able to be stupid and maleable because that is easier than being introspective and learned.
Re:hmm. (Score:1)
Re:hmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Newspapers lay out pages by putting in the ads first, then filling the remaining white space (called the "news hole") with stories. Often there are more stories the boss editors feel are important than there is space to run all of them full length, so some or all of the stories get trimmed to fit. Decisions on what words to cut out of which stories are not made by a group of cackling [liberal; conservative; Zionist; law enforcement] conspirators in a back room, but by overworked (and usually underpaid) wordsmiths watching the clock tick toward the moment when the presses are scheduled to run. These people do not have the power to decide which stories get covered and which do not. They are the hands-on people responsible for getting the paper put together on time every day; the sergeants of the newspaper business, you might say.
Deadline pressure combined with the necessity to make the paper fit as much information as possible onto each (expensive) square inch of newsprint is to blame for at least 99% of all perceived newspaper copyediting errors.
The copyeditor who is making the cuts is also, in most cases, proofreading the stories, checking facts, and writing headlines. It is a brutal job, and out of the hundreds of stories a big newspaper like The Post runs in every edition, chances are approximately 100% that at least a few cuts will be made that are less than perfect.
A big advantage Internet news purveyors have over print news sources, and over broadcast sources too, who have "X" minutes of time to fill, and that's it, is that it costs effectively nothing to run 5 extra paragraphs of text on the WWW if those paragraphs will add more depth or accuracy to a story.
Hands-on, daily deadline copyediting is a brutal job carried out not by "anonymous cowards" but by people who do their best to make stories as accurate and readable as possible in too little time, usually on a copy desk that is a few people short not only because of recent media layoffs, but because competent copyeditors are always in short supply. The job takes an immense range of knowledge, powerful research skills, and a willingness to accept attacks for every mistake made while foregoing public credit when everything goes "just right."
- Robin
Your estimate is WAY too generous to the media (Score:4, Insightful)
I have seen, too many times, bias creep its way into copy editing and (ESPECIALLY!) headline
writing decisions. Occasionally (see Slashdot's unfortunate coverage of Wired's "coverage" of the supposed "raid on e-gold" -- which would have been a fine story except that not only did it not happen, both Wired's headline writer and Slashdot's either didn't read the text of their own story or purposely chose to distort that text to make up a better headline) -- the facts be damned. I'm sure that competent copyeditors are always in short supply, but I'd think that even the INcompetent ones might read stories before slapping a headline on 'em and inviting my withering sarcasm.
What I'm disputing here is your "99%" estimate above. I'd say that AT LEAST 5% of mistakes are due to bias (not gonna get into whether there's media bias, or how various media outlets are biased, but we'd probably disagree on that, too). I have seen and informally studied headline & copy-editing errors for DECADES, and over the years the pattern of distortion has been more indicative of agendas than honest accidents in WAY more than 1% of cases. The mistakes AREN'T random (analysts at www.mrc.org and www.fair.org would probably both agree with me on that point, and they disagree on just-about everything).
Again, your eloquence is appreciated (especially by any copy-editors who are reading all this, and I'm sure their job sucks sometimes -- like all jobs can suck!) but your estimate is orders of magnitude off, IMO. Also, if incompetent headline writers really AREN'T anonymous cowards, then there's one over at Wired whose actual name I'd appreciate knowing -- so far all I've got is 'not Declan,' which (even with media-layoffs) doesn't really narrow things down too much, does it?
JMR
(Speaking ONLY for myself!)
Re:hmm. (Score:2, Insightful)
We're not talking about a cut here. The problem isn't that bits of his side were dropped, but that he was misrepresented. In the original article [slashdot.org] he says
Not a cut, not deliberate... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think this was a deliberate attempt to slant the story, but it sure looks like an unconscious one. That is, the editor was in a hurry when reading the story, and interpreted it according to his expectations -- as guilt, not grief...
Re:hmm. (Score:2, Interesting)
As someone who deals routinely with journalists, I'd have to say your version is the J-school fantasyland version.
For an illustrative example of the real world version, click here [netrinsics.com] (story of Time Asia hiring me to do a hatchet job on Bill Gates).
I've had a CNN reporter based in Beijing complain point blank that China coverage was for all practical purposes written in Atlanta.
I could go on with similar stories for pages and pages.
Re:hmm. (Score:1)
not the washington post recently (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:not the washington post recently (Score:1)
An interesting way of looking at the media is not that they're biased (which they are--they are mostly Statists), but more importantly, that they want to be considered insiders, part of the action. They become "courtiers" in that they surround the centers of power with sycophancy and general toadiness. That is why they come off sounding like the government's own Ministry of Propaganda.
Re:hmm. (Score:1)
Measuring media dishonesty (Score:2, Informative)
In general i think most press dishonesty is in pursuit of the aim to be more interesting. That's the main selling value. Political agendas are much less important to press than most people think.
Useful moderation system for Slashdot? Very valuable, yes. Question is how. Too heavy for full use.
Re:hmm. (Score:2)
The stories printed in this newspaper (or any media for that matter) are for entertainment purposes ONLY, and are not to be construed as a truthful representation of reality in any way.
On second thought, a well informed public being essential for the success of a DEMOCRACY, maybe it IS a commie plot.
Re:hmm. (Score:4, Interesting)
Not a commie plot... (Score:1)
Re:hmm. (Score:1)
I'm betting there was political motivation behind it. Phil might be called an 'opinion maker' when it comes to encryption. To portray him as feeling guilt over PGP helps in the push to pass anti-encryption laws. I've had limited experience with the press, but even in my case they always dressed it up to fit a 'message'. What do you think the message was in this case?
As far as Phils comment about good intentioned politicians: bullshit. Politicians deceive all the time. For example, nobody smiles that much while talking politics.
Playing it like Bush: "Oh, did I say Crusade? Oh, I didn't mean it like that... and how dare you for implying such a thing!"
Either that or he's a> naive or b> afraid of being ridiculed as a conspiracy guy.
Ridicule only works to inhibit thinking.
Re:hmm. (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why it pays to read what he actually said:
If anyone is to blame for the change it's the editors, not the writer. And the editors are probably pretty stressed right now. I doubt they were being malicious.
You may have heard of the principle "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity". Maybe that should be changed to include stress, exhaustion, and emotional turmoil.
Re:hmm. (Score:1)
I agree with you that this seems to imply "purpose", but I think that people were most specifically upset with a bias against string cryptography, which I'm not sure is evident from what he said. It was definately not good journalism to edit this the way they did, but the editors intent may have been to either make the story more interesting, or possibly they just made the mistake while trying to make the story sound consistent. Of course this isn't good journalism, and perhaps somewhat dishonest, but I don't think that there is a definate implication of dishonesty or bias.
Of course, given the politics of the situation, I'd be playing down the post's mistake too, if I were Zimmerman.