New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’
Just listened to most of this earlier. I don&#x27;t quite get it.<p>IIRC, the original series <i>did</i> treat Chaudhry as dubious, but maybe partially truthful . He <i>was</i> caught on a timeline lie, confronted by the journalist, he adjusted his timeline... Also, the whole series was constructed somewhat naively. It follows the journalist&#x27;s investigations sequentially. The &quot;story&quot; follows leads and narratives that do or don&#x27;t turn out to be true. You&#x27;re following an investigation in progress. In that frame, this is just further evidence as the story continues.<p>Caliphate just isn&#x27;t framed as a traditional print &quot;feature&quot; where the journalist weighs everything in advance and only references fact-checked reliable evidence once they&#x27;re done.<p>I actually felt that caliphate did a better-than-most job at communicating shades of certainty. I wish the NYT did <i>more</i> of this. Journalistic standards are good tools, but they do not (should not, IMO) just sort everything into &quot;true&quot; or &quot;unverified&quot; piles and . Uncertainty about truth is inevitable. Communicate this well, honestly, and we&#x27;ll all be better informed.<p>This felt like <i>way</i> more than a retraction. Maybe they&#x27;re using it as a &quot;teaching moment&quot; about how journalism works. I don&#x27;t love it though. I can think of much better targets for NYT mea culpa or soul search. Caliphate is not a low watermark for journalism in any way. Maybe I&#x27;m missing something.<p>If they (or any major paper) is feeling reflective, why not reflect on more systemic questions. How about double confirmed rumours from anonymous sources? Two sources, even if both remain nameless and have a personal interest in leaking to the press is considered fine.. I believe. This is common in political reporting. Stuff gets leaked. Journalists get confirmation from another insider.. maybe two. That can be printed. If it turns out to be a fallacious rumour, they still &quot;met standards.&quot; Maybe they print a retraction, but no one did anything wrong. Meanwhile, this is the cause of many untruths getting published each year.