[geekpowa]

I search "Jan 6 Deaths" and very first hit is this NYT article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol...

The article contradicts your claim "reported and quietly fixed days later without ever really owning up to it". Firstly it is the first hit so hardly quiet. Secondly it outlines that initial reporting of Sicknick's death was simply reporting what capital police said, later revised by medical examiner. All front and center in this article.

[remarkEon]

This largely has to do with the social media ecosystem in which these traditional companies find themselves, where social media is the primary vector for information access for the majority now (HN is an extreme outlier where people may actually read things beyond their "news" feed).

"quietly fixed" in that sense means "NYT reports one thing and it goes viral, corrects/updates/adds context later post-virality and, because it doesn't fit the existing narrative established by the initial viral story, most don't see it". Most people don't go back and check to see if a story they read 6 months ago has some new details that fundamentally change the impact of that story.

Whether NYT knows about this phenomenon, and (ahem "quietly") tunes their reporting to that phenomenon is a separate question.

[geekpowa]

Are we blaming traditional media companies for the content overload shitshow we now find ourselves living in?

If NYT could provide a remedy, what would that remedy even look like?

Wikileaks' ascendancy was on the narrative that traditional media is broken and untrustworthy. At the time I brought into that and the premise that they were disrupting this traditional industry and remaking it better. Now I realise like alot of IT focused disruption (including disruption I've worked on directly myself as an IT practioner), all they achieved was recreate the very thing they sought to disrupt, but poorly and generally worse version of it.

Older and wiser now and I realise personally that the trust problem is something much more than something for 'others' to step up and fix, but substantially in how I myself consume content.

[remarkEon]

>Are we blaming traditional media companies for the content overload shitshow we now find ourselves living in?

I am absolutely blaming them for this shitshow, yes, if we're defining content overload as the self licking ice cream cone of viral news.

What happened here was a parallel evolution. On social media, whatever got the most eyeballs got the most clicks and thus the most ad revenue, and engineers tuned the algorithm to exploit this.

Traditional Media sees this, and strives to do the same but the difference is that they are (and now arguably were) speaking from a position of moral and institutional authority, and have since diluted their brand and standing with clickbait, stories that were published without proper vetting, getting things outright wrong etc etc. That's their own God damn fault. Nothing was stopping say NYT from developing their own Substack or a version of it.

>Older and wiser now and I realise personally that the trust problem is something much more than something for 'others' to step up and fix, but substantially in how I myself consume content.

Again, you post on HN. You're an extreme outlier with the self awareness to know that certain media consumption habits are unhealthy and likely divinate a worldview where a reality forms based simply on what's in your newsfeed and not any underlying truth.

[OrvalWintermute]

> If NYT could provide a remedy, what would that remedy even look like?

I don't know if we can even consider the NYT a reliable source. After all, it was the NYT's fabulist Walter Duranty that covered for Stalin's forced starvation of 7 to 13 million people in former Soviet countries [1], and actively wrote for the benefit of communism, rather than the truth [2]. And, for his deception, received a Pulitzer Prize [3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%93...

[2] https://codoh.com/library/document/stalins-apologist-walter-...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_Pulitzer_Prize

[selwynii]

Corrections get a tiny single digit fraction of the views of the original. There is no button to make sure everyone who saw the original sees the correction, assuming one is made.

All you need is a few other places making the same claim, sourced to NYT, and only the people that care enough will even click through to read the source. NYT isn't putting corrections on headline news for the same visibility as the nice fresh off the press article.

[sharperguy]

There labels on all the major social media platforms now saying if something is considered misinformation.

Maybe there should be a "major parts of this story were retracted by the media outlet" or something to news articles like this.

[systemvoltage]

I am just learning this. I thought all deaths were due to rioters and knew about Ashley's death when she was fatally shot. I read liberal media, all day, everyday - subscribed to WaPo and NYT.

[adolph]

The linked article is from January 5 2022, a year less a day after the events in question, right? So it doesn't contradict a claim about the original reporting.

[geekpowa]

First article google search returns today != the first time NYT reported these things including clarifications as they became public which was months after the event around April 2021, and widely reported in detail by the press at that time.

In regards to the underlying events, and my motivation for commenting, it is splitting hairs. Media reported what was established at the time but none of it significantly changes the core history of what happened on Jan 6. The protest was violent with lots of assaults and injuries. This is now extensively documented, even with investigations still well in progress.

[adolph]

Your claim:

> The article contradicts your claim "reported and quietly fixed days later without ever really owning up to it".

It doesn't contradict the initial claim since the article to which you linked is from a year later. What you would need to do is establish the historical chronology of newspaper articles that did not report police lies and then quietly correct the record days later. Otherwise your counterclaim is very weak.

> Media reported what was established at the time

News media do not report what is established at any time. What is established is by nature not news. The presence of claims in the media are then used to convince people of what information is established as true. By uncritically repeating lies news media has been fanning conflict since before the sinking of the Maine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(1889)

[stjohnswarts]

These are the lies they keep telling themselves. I had seen in several places that after more investigation the cop died of a heart attack,nevertheless it is almost certain he wouldn't have had that heart attack if that mob of traitors hadn't assaulted the capitol building, yet somehow they'll pick at a tiny detail and ignore the other 90% of the situation. It's maddening yet laughable at their feats of logic acrobatics.