Love this, Jeremy! I can't wait to read. I was wondering where you went, so glad you're back! It's so hard to stay consistent with massive research projects - I totally feel your pain.
A quick note about your NYT corrections - I think there used to be a Twitter feed that was basically a bot that tracked news corrections in the Gray Lady. I wish I could remember its handle, but it might be something to look out for in your research!
It's so helpful for people to know that journalists make mistakes - I totally agree that there's a false perception that everything published in mainstream outlets is inherently accurate. It would help if publications were more straightforward about corrections, but either way, recognizing the potential for fallibility definitely contributes to the public's media literacy in important ways.
Maybe you’re referring to @nyttypos? There were a few of them over the years, including one that (IIRC) tracked their *published* corrections. But they are super reluctant to admit errors that aren’t basic typos so I didn’t find it as helpful for the purpose of showing their so to speak true error rate. It’s a very labor intensive problem!
I've seen the ones you're talking about that track published corrections. This one tracks changes to the text of articles on the main page of The NY Times. I actually remembered the account name (Editing TheGrayLady) and found it on X: https://x.com/nyt_diff
Love this, Jeremy! I can't wait to read. I was wondering where you went, so glad you're back! It's so hard to stay consistent with massive research projects - I totally feel your pain.
A quick note about your NYT corrections - I think there used to be a Twitter feed that was basically a bot that tracked news corrections in the Gray Lady. I wish I could remember its handle, but it might be something to look out for in your research!
It's so helpful for people to know that journalists make mistakes - I totally agree that there's a false perception that everything published in mainstream outlets is inherently accurate. It would help if publications were more straightforward about corrections, but either way, recognizing the potential for fallibility definitely contributes to the public's media literacy in important ways.
You would know a thing about that haha.
Maybe you’re referring to @nyttypos? There were a few of them over the years, including one that (IIRC) tracked their *published* corrections. But they are super reluctant to admit errors that aren’t basic typos so I didn’t find it as helpful for the purpose of showing their so to speak true error rate. It’s a very labor intensive problem!
I've seen the ones you're talking about that track published corrections. This one tracks changes to the text of articles on the main page of The NY Times. I actually remembered the account name (Editing TheGrayLady) and found it on X: https://x.com/nyt_diff
Previously, there was also NewsDiffs ( https://x.com/newsdiffs ), which tracked changes to the text of NYT articles more broadly (could also be found at https://www.newsdiffs.org).
Hopefully those tools will be helpful in speeding up your research! :)