Should GMI post retractions?

[Buick61]

The crafters behind the scenes at this site have done an immense job of creating a legitimate news source for not only members, but other sites and even printed media.

But unlike established news-outlets, GMI doesn't print/post retractions. When the New York Times wrote an untruth about the domestic automakers regarding cylinder deactivation, many on this site got riled up and e-mailed the editors. A retraction was posted online and in print.

The reason for retractions is simple: integrity.

No one likes being wrong, but owning up to inaccuracies is generally good for one's reputation.

GMI made a fairly big deal about the 2009 Astra not having any changes from the 2008 model.

nsap made it front page news, and he included it on the 2009 Saturn Lineup thread:

2009 Astra = 2008 Astra?

Meet Your 2009 Saturn Lineup

Perian also put it in a rather sensational headline concerning the Astra's sales and inventory figures:

Saturn Astra: $4.25+ Gas; 306 Day Inventory Supply; No Changes For 2009; Why?


Well, that turned out not to be true. There are changes to the U.S. model for 2009, as indicated by GM's media site.

In all three threads I said as much, but it wasn't picked up by any newscontributor, moderator, or admin. An example of such a post is below:

Meet Your 2009 Saturn Lineup

So it seems, to an outside observer, that GMI's official position remains that the car is the same as it was last year.

The site got a lot of mileage out of the headlines, but it's perhaps time to offer a full retraction on the error.

I'm not criticising the site as a whole or individual contributors. I'm merely offering an example and suggestion for ways to improve.

I hope no toes were bruised by this post.


Yours,

~Buick61

[ronald mcretard]

I agree, not sure why nobody picked up on this...

By the way, does the "advanced audio package" include an aux jack?

[FenwickHockey65]

Wow, I wasn't even aware of the changes.
But then again, do the admins know about them? They may just not know, which is why there hasn't been a retraction.
But I agree. As a news site, GMi needs to correct this error.

[DuSpinnst]

Perian always posts crappy articles. The man shouldn't be a news contributor.

[Old Dood]

Originally Posted by DuSpinnst

Perian always posts crappy articles. The man shouldn't be a news contributor.

Don't hold back. Say what you really mean.

[nsap]

No. The 2009 Astra Order Guide still shows no changes, so until that changes I am not inclined to believe otherwise.

[Ming]

Phew, I thought someone was going to call me out on THIS one from January 2007.

Or maybe THIS one from Feb. 2006!

[Buick61]

Originally Posted by Ming

Phew, I thought someone was going to call me out on THIS one from January 2007.

Or maybe THIS one from Feb. 2006!

Those are completely different. You were upfront with labeling them an editorial. Something being represented as straight news is held to a different standard of veracity.

[Buick61]

Originally Posted by nsap

No. The 2009 Astra Order Guide still shows no changes, so until that changes I am not inclined to believe otherwise.

I don't understand why you'd put so much weight on one GM source and completely disregard another?

http://media.gm.com/us/saturn/en/pro...a/09index.html

[FenwickHockey65]

Advanced audio package?
iPod input jack???
Interesting. Looks like they've worked on Americanizing some things.

[paul8488]

Originally Posted by DuSpinnst

Perian always posts crappy articles. The man shouldn't be a news contributor.

Sure he should. His articles aren't crappy at all. I think he posts some of the best news here.

Saturn Astra: $4.25+ Gas; 306 Day Inventory Supply; No Changes For 2009; Why?

This is true. Saturn has a 306 day supply of Astra's in an era of $4.25+ gas, and Saturn has not planned any changes to the car for 2009.

Jury's apparently still out on that last point... but it appeared true when he posted the article.

[Buick61]

Originally Posted by paul8488

Sure he should. His articles aren't crappy at all. I think he posts some of the best news here.

This is true. Saturn has a 306 day supply of Astra's in an era of $4.25+ gas, and Saturn has not planned any changes to the car for 2009.

Jury's apparently still out on that last point... but it appeared true when he posted the article.

I'm not accusing the site of posting knowingly untrue information. I'm saying, "Should it be the site's policy to post a formal retraction when new news contradicts old news?"

I just used the Astra issue as an example, it need not be the focus of discussion herein.

[Branden]

IMO a retraction is required when you post something in error or misunderstanding. Your are taking back something false you posted in error. In this case, the news was repliable from accurate sources at the time of publication.

From my understanding, at the time NSAP made the post, the ordering/fleet guide showed no changes. If the ordering guide really said their were changes, and he reported there were no changes, that would require a retraction. However the fact that the media guide came out later and says something different would be new news..not something where you go back and retract an old story.

We can only report the news as it comes out. As long as what is posted is acurate at the time of publication no retraction is needed.

If you have any issues with this please contact NSAP or DASCROW privately, as the editorial policies of the site are not up for discussion in the forums.

Originally Posted by Buick61

The crafters behind the scenes at this site have done an immense job of creating a legitimate news source for not only members, but other sites and even printed media.

But unlike established news-outlets, GMI doesn't print/post retractions. When the New York Times wrote an untruth about the domestic automakers regarding cylinder deactivation, many on this site got riled up and e-mailed the editors. A retraction was posted online and in print.

The reason for retractions is simple: integrity.

No one likes being wrong, but owning up to inaccuracies is generally good for one's reputation.

GMI made a fairly big deal about the 2009 Astra not having any changes from the 2008 model.

nsap made it front page news, and he included it on the 2009 Saturn Lineup thread:

2009 Astra = 2008 Astra?

Meet Your 2009 Saturn Lineup

Perian also put it in a rather sensational headline concerning the Astra's sales and inventory figures:

Saturn Astra: $4.25+ Gas; 306 Day Inventory Supply; No Changes For 2009; Why?


Well, that turned out not to be true. There are changes to the U.S. model for 2009, as indicated by GM's media site.

In all three threads I said as much, but it wasn't picked up by any newscontributor, moderator, or admin. An example of such a post is below:

Meet Your 2009 Saturn Lineup

So it seems, to an outside observer, that GMI's official position remains that the car is the same as it was last year.

The site got a lot of mileage out of the headlines, but it's perhaps time to offer a full retraction on the error.

I'm not criticising the site as a whole or individual contributors. I'm merely offering an example and suggestion for ways to improve.

I hope no toes were bruised by this post.


Yours,

~Buick61

[Buick61]

Originally Posted by Branden

IMO a retraction is required when you post something in error or misunderstanding. Your are taking back something false you posted in error. In this case, the news was repliable from accurate sources at the time of publication.

From my understanding, at the time NSAP made the post, the ordering/fleet guide showed no changes. If the ordering guide really said their were changes, and he reported there were no changes, that would require a retraction. However the fact that the media guide came out later and says something different would be new news..not something where you go back and retract an old story.

We can only report the news as it comes out. As long as what is posted is acurate at the time of publication no retraction is needed.

If you have any issues with this please contact NSAP or DASCROW privately, as the editorial policies of the site are not up for discussion in the forums.

I see what you're saying.

So instead of a retraction, in this case at least, the information would be treated as new news. It'd be one of those stories that always starts off, "Contrary to prior reports..."

[FenwickHockey65]

^^ Either that or they could just update the article, much like they did when new information about the brand-axing news came out.