Reuters Sorry About Pre-Releasing Kinda Bitchy Soros Obit, Not Sorry Enough To Take It Down

from the things-are-busy dept

From our friends over at Dealbreaker, we learn that those bastions of professional journalism, Reuters, published a premature obituary for George Soros (where they left in the XXs for his age).

Upon realizing this, Reuters issued an apology, but apparently left the original story up for about an hour before someone realized that perhaps they should pull it down.
Hey, everyone makes mistakes, but it seems a little silly when people want to argue that bloggers are untrustworthy and that the mainstream media is careful about these things. Following their massive fuck up concerning the Boston Marathon bombing and then followed by stories like this, I think it’s safe to note that mistakes happen across the board — though it seems as if amateur blogs and the like often seem a lot faster about making corrections…

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: reuters

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Reuters Sorry About Pre-Releasing Kinda Bitchy Soros Obit, Not Sorry Enough To Take It Down”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
27 Comments
yaga (profile) says:

sad?

I find it kind of sad that many news organizations have pre-written obits for many famous people so that they can try to be the first to announce it. Obviously they should spend a little more time on fact-checking and double checking what they are about to print or post online than trying to post the first obit about someone’s death.

JarHead (profile) says:

— though it seems as if amateur blogs and the like often seem a lot faster about making corrections…

Well, to be fair, “amateurs” tend to be less multitasking, hence can keep a significant focus on the topic at hand. Hence errors can be more readily detected and rectified.

Pros, however, tend to multitask a lot, and focus are divided among several topics, and not to mention the “check and balances” guideline they must adhere, which tends to be much more stricter than those adhered by amateurs (cos their names depend on it). Errors are slower to detect, and once detected, there’s the check-and-recheck phase. So, in terms of error detection and correction, “amateurs” tend to be more “agile” and “robust”.

Of course this is an over generalization and simplification…

Anonymous Coward says:

“Hey, everyone makes mistakes, but it seems a little silly when people want to argue that bloggers are untrustworthy and that the mainstream media is careful about these things.”

You’re more untrustworthy than most, Mike. Everyone makes mistakes, but most people do basic journalism before publishing articles–unlike you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 19th, 2013 @ 5:27am

He says that he does journalism from time to time, and of course he never explains how we’re supposed to know when he’s doing journalism and when he’s not. Why should we believe anything he writes? Maybe he’s not doing journalism.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 19th, 2013 @ 5:27am

“He says that he does journalism from time to time, and of course he never explains how we’re supposed to know when he’s doing journalism and when he’s not. Why should we believe anything he writes? Maybe he’s not doing journalism.”

AC says that he has a brain, and of course the boy never explains how we’re supposed to know when he’s using it and when he’s not. Why should we believe anything he writes? Maybe he’s not using his brain.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 19th, 2013 @ 5:27am

“Why should we believe anything he writes?”

Sometimes I don’t. But you know what? He’s really good about linking, and often embedding, his sources. Why should I have to take his word on what some appeals court ruled, when I can just read the whole opinion?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...