On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:30 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/04/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
That was a little strong, let me rephrase. A BLP subject does not have the right to expunge any material that
other
editors deem has come from a reliable source. If you show your boobs
on video
while you were drunk once, guess what? You did it, now face the
consequences
:)
I'm talking about the case where something simply incorrect makes it into a newspaper and never goes away, and the subject can't correct it because robotic idiots claiming to be editors read in WP:RS that a newspaper is always a Reliable Source. Never mind that anyone who's ever actually been in the press will laugh hollowly at the notion. Suability is not the same as accuracy.
- d.
Its a good thing to remember that other, more organised institutions are also dealing with this problem. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/opinion/26pubed.html A bunch of proposed solutions: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/letters-the-readers-speak/
Have fun considering their applicability to this discussion, though I think its been mentioned here before. Incidentally, this means that if the NYT hasn't withdrawn a story the subject thinks is inaccurate, they likely have considered it and disagreed.
RR