It’s hard to write-off the fairly obvious flaws in Times’s two articles as a “clash of perspective between scientist and journalist,” but this is probably as good as the public’s going to get as far as explanations go. It should be a mark of shame on the Times that it so obstinately resisted atoning for its mistakes for so long, and that it will not give the general public a clear explanation of what went so wrong in its newsroom.
04:00 PM - July 8, 2010
Shameful Obstinacy at The Sunday Times
Paper finally retracts Amazongate, aggressive-blondes articles
Who cares if it’s true? - Modern-day newsrooms reconsider their values
What Is Russia Today? - The Kremlin’s propaganda outlet has an identity crisis
And from the left…Fox News - There’s more to Fox News’ strategy of hiring liberals than creating a public boxing match
Why Skype isn’t safe for journalists - Here are some alternatives for secure voice calls to use instead
Placing a bet on USA Today - Gannett has long felt the television model could translate into print. Now it’s using its flagship paper to double down on that idea.
Email blasts from CJR writers and editors
Maybe everything when that name is “Satoshi Nakamoto”
Here’s what happens when the readers choose the frontpage story
The numbers on the Daily Mail don’t add up
Conservation group calls for donations of small knitted jumpers for birds who have been caught in oil spills
Stunning timelapse of Yosemite National Park
Who Owns What
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.