On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:30 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 09/04/2008, WJhonson(a)aol.com
<WJhonson(a)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hasn't withdrawn a story the subject thinks is inaccurate, they likely have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