Comment by lich_king
7 hours ago
It is not a job of the editor to assume that the author is lying to you.
> This was an institutional error, not an individual reporter's fault.
Ah yes, "the system made me use AI".
7 hours ago
It is not a job of the editor to assume that the author is lying to you.
> This was an institutional error, not an individual reporter's fault.
Ah yes, "the system made me use AI".
More akin to not having code reviews in opinion. If the process isn't there you're just not picking up certain issues.
If the Ars Technica editorial process requires assuming reporters don't fabricate quotes, then their process is inadequate. That's like a software company letting junior engineers release directly to production with just a spellcheck and no real process to catch errors. Major publications like The New Yorker, The Atlantic, etc. have a dedicated fact-checking department that is part of the process and needs to give the ok before any article is published. Why is their process so deficient by comparison? Why wasn't there any fact checking?
> That's like a software company letting junior engineers release directly to production
This person wasn’t a junior.
Editorial processes don’t actually check every single line of everything that is written. Journalists are trusted to report accurately. This person demonstrated they could not be trusted.
> Why wasn't there any fact checking?
Why do programmers ever let any bugs get to production if they have code review? Journalistic outlets do not fact check literally every line that is ever written before it goes to publication.
I agree completely, the people who are acting like it's Ars' responsibility to assume every sentence from their journalists are lies just aren't being realistic.
And even if Ars editors had caught the fabricated quote, what then? Obviously he should still be fired. Ars could probably benifit from better editors but even so this doesn't absolve the journalist of any of his own blame, for being the one responsible for introducing these fabrications in the first place.
But they generally (or at least they did when I was in the biz) fact check quotes. It only takes a few minutes to fire off an email.
The “system” should make it difficult to make mistakes.
But more importantly, why can’t both be at fault?
Having fact checkers review every articles you publish is a very low bar (as in you should not be in the business of publishing news if you can’t do it effectively).
As someone who worked as a newspaper copy editor for the first third of my career, "assume that the author is lying to you" was the entire job.
A lapse in that non-hypothetically left me responsible, and legally liable, in situations like this.
> legally liable
I think this is the thing people are missing the most. Libel is an incredibly serious thing to do. Misstating a fact is a faux pas and a bad look but misquoting someone, especially if that article is taken as a hit piece, can cost hundreds of thousands or millions.