It's interesting that the Times' Editor highlights their SEO strategy as the biggest part of the problem, its not just that the inaccurate story never dies, the NY Times has also worked hard to make sure that is the first thing anyone sees if they google someone.
The article lists several potential solutions, discarding most of them as impractical or unlikely to work, ranging from programming the archives to "forget" stories that have later been corrected or questioned to rereporting all stories.
One of the most practical fixes turned up in a subsequent Letter to the Editor:
The Web is actually a blessing for those whose names are intentionally or
unintentionally besmirched. It offers an elegantly simple solution to the
problem of lingering bad news: ape the taglines of the offending items and, so
to speak, counter-blog.
While another letter points out:
There's a simple solution: The Times should stop using the technique.
Stripped of the rhetoric, The Times is basically saying that harming folks' reputations is a bit of collateral damage that inevitably occurs as the paper tries to make more money. I don't find that a very compelling argument, and I don't think you should, either.
1 comment:
Counter-blogging could be useful but maybe the Times could just do its job better. Most of the offending information cited in the article was the result of really sloppy journalism. Could it be that the newspaper of record doesn't quite deserve its august reputation? And doesn't using SEO underscore the Times' commitment more to its bottom line than the truth?
Post a Comment