''When you're wrong in this profession, there is only one thing to do,'' he said.
''And that is get right as fast as you can.''
in 'CORRECTING THE RECORD; Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception', New York Times, 2003
Feb 24, 2014
Written by FeverSkatng
Composite Image by The New York Times
The New York Times has recently published the above photographs, comparing the figure skating jumps executed by Yuna Kim and Adelia Sotnikova at the 2014 Sochi Olympics Ladies Free Event. Upon seeing this, one would make an immediate conclusion that the skater above (Adelina Sotnikova, RUS) jumps higher than the one below (Yuna Kim, KOR) .
However, there are a number of issues with these photographs.
First is the fundamental difference in their jumps.
Sotnikova on the top is executing a 2A-3T (Double Axel-Triple Loop) combination, and Kim a 3S-2T (Triple Salchow-Double Toe Loop) combination.
They are two completely different TYPES of jumps and their numbers of rotations differ as well.
Moreover, two skaters are executing their jumps at different places on the ice. This of course would mean that the angle and the direction in which the photographs were taken differed as well. Taking these facts into consideration, it becomes readily evident that comparing two different photographs of two different types of jumping combination is a pointless exercise.
Secondly, there is a major scale discrepancy.
According to the Sochi Olympics’ official website, Sotnikova is 1.63m (5’4“); Kim is 1.65m(5’5”).
Sotnikova is shorter than Kim. But in the photos below used by NYT, she is scaled to 3cm while Kim is scaled to 2.8cm.
The fact that Sotnikova appears bigger in the photo means that there is a scale discrepancy in the two photos used by NYT.
Why this is important? It's because this scale discrepancy creates this much visual error, as seen in the images below we are providing.
This much scale discrepancy is enough to make Sotnikova's jump look bigger than it really was and of course than Kim's.
Below are the images we adjusted based on the correct ratio of height difference between the two skaters.
Is it not that clear to you how they are different from the original?
Then let's go back to the original images.
Composite Image by The New York Times
The error becomes fairly obvious.
Next, the poor compositing. Let's start with enlarging the photo.
Then zoom in.
Notice the choppiness in the stitching that exists neither in any other area in Sotnikova's image nor Kim's?
Of course it is HIGHLY probable that this is just due to the camera rotating on the y-axis too much at the time of photographing this double axel,
resulting in losing the coherency in the speed photos' perspectives which would have made the stitching more complex.
In any sense, it would be safe to say that as a result, the particular area of the stitched photos lacks the accuracy to properly represent the double axel moment.
Lastly, the line with an arrow used in the NYT's image to illustrate the jump path, the flow and the height.
The first arrow-line in Sotnikova's image has a wrong starting point. It starts from her right leg which is the free leg(kicked to the back and swinging in the air, in preparation for the jump). The actual take off didn't happen from that toe point as illustrated in NYT's image.
By using that free leg as the point of take-off, the arrow end up being an inaccurate representation of Sotnikova's jump.
If anything, this misrepresentation only glamourizes her jump than it really is.
In using these photographs, New York Times wrote:
'Sotnikova’s combination had a much higher base value because she chose to do the most difficult double jump, the double axel. She received high marks for her good flow, height and distance.', 'The double jump Kim chose is one of the easiest, so it has a low base value. The entry was simple, and the jump ended with little speed.'
If the New York Times was to demonstrate the total difference between the difficulty of Sotnikova and Kim's total jump elements, the analysis should have been based on ALL the jumps that Sotnikova and Kim each did and didn't do.
If the New York Times was to demonstrate the difference in the quality and execution of the jumps, they should have made the image comparison using the jumps that Sotnikova and Kim both did, such as 3Lz-3T, 3F, 3S, 2A in the free program.
These are the flaws in the supporting images used by New York Times.
Now, let's take a look at the article "How Sotnikova Beat Kim, Move by Move".
The article included the following table to explain "where Sotnikova scored higher".
Composite Image by The New York Times
The major flaw here: this table is using the COMBINED points of the base value and the GOE, the grade given by the judges based on how well THE JUDGES THOUGHT the element was executed at the time of performance. Even though as we have all heard many, many times this week, the judging is "subjectively" done.
Therefore, we created the following table to show only the base value.
(The reason why the step and spin elements are not included in this chart will be explained later.)
Please note that unlike New York Times' table, this table includes the base values from both short and free programs.
That is because as Brian Boitano has said in his interview with CNN, we also believe that "Kim's score should not have been so close to Sotnikova's after the short program and that is the gap that should not have been bridged so that Yuna Kim would have been a two time Olympic champion."
Also notice that even though Kim's short program was "more difficult" judging from the base value of the jump elements that advances Sotnikova's by 1.90 points, this didn't seem to have been reflected as loyally as what those who defend Sotnikova's free program score like to say, since the final scores after the short program were only separated by 0.28 in Kim's advantange.
The New York Times' claim that Sotnikova won because "her combination had a much higher base value because she chose to do the most difficult double jump (while) the double jump Kim chose is one of the easiest, so it has a low base value", therefore; faces a challenge to establish itself especially given that Kim's short program had a higher base value.
No, Sotnikova didn't win by the 5.48 total point difference because her program was "more difficult". She won because the judges "subjectively" unanimously thought that she executed her elements EXCEEDINGLY BETTER than Kim, then the reigning Olympic Champion and the current world champion, and added that much GOE to her protocol.
Out of the 108 different GOE pts received from the nine judges on the twelve elements in free skating, Sotnikova received a whooping thirty-three 3 GOE pts(the highest), and only nine of the 1 GOE pts. While many believe that Kim's free skating was near perfect, only thirtheen of the Kim's was marked with 3 GOE pts by the judges. Forty-one of them was marked with 1 GOE pts.
So, in spite of all this, does the NYT article still hold credibility in your eyes?
For those who say yes, I'd like to present another piece of data. (Actually, this is the part that just might be the highlight.)
After watching this particular video and reading these materials, if you still have doubts as to whether the NYT article was being truthful or otherwise, I'd certainly like to hear from you.
>>Was scoring for the ladies figure skating acceptable? http://www.feverskating.com/fevers/64956111
>>Comparing 'One-foot step' in FS Kim and Sotnikova http://www.feverskating.com/fevers/65097603
The New York Times reported that Sotnikova won over Kim "point by point" using the overall technical element score -- the sum total of base value and grade of execution-- as the support for their claim.
However, as we have seen, that argument is flawed in various aspects. Further, as noted in many other media reports, there is something suspicious about the judging panel, and the judges awarded exceedingly generous marks for the Russian athlete.
The fact that Sotnikova received the unmatched number of GOE 3s out of all skaters as well as the exceptionally high PCS would mean that her Olympic program was one of the most groundbreaking, revolutionary masterpieces(if not unprecedented) performed since the new scoring system was implemented.
But was it really?
History will be the judge of that.
JAYSON BLAIR'S FINAL NEW YORK TIMES PRESS RUN
New York Observer
May 14, 2003
NYT "허위·표절기사 사과합니다"
May 12, 2003
Written by 허종혁 워싱턴 특파원
뉴욕 타임스는 자사 제이슨 블레어 기자의 허위 보도 관련 파문을 11일자 1면 톱기사로 보도했다. 굵은 테두리선 부분은 ‘사임한 타임스 기자의 기만 흔적들’이란 제목의 톱기사.권위를 자랑하는 미국 뉴욕 타임스의 1면 머리기사를 포함한 주요 기사에 취재원의 발언이 날조되고, 다른 신문들의 보도를 짜깁기하거나 표절한 기사가 버젓이 실려온 사실이 밝혀져 충격을 주고 있다.
뉴욕 타임스는 11일자에서 국내 뉴스부 제이슨 블레어(27)기자를 해고했다고 밝히면서 '기록을 정정합니다'라는 장문의 특별 기사를 내보냈다.
이 신문은 "지난해 10월부터 최근까지 블레어가 쓴 73건의 기사를 조사한 결과 이 중 절반 가량인 36건에서 문제를 발견했다"면서 "그가 4년간 쓴 6백여건의 기사 전체에 대해 정밀 조사에 들어갔다"고 밝혔다. 이를 위해 독자들에게 블레어가 쓴 허위기사에 대한 제보도 당부했다.
뉴욕 타임스는 회장이자 발행인인 아서 설즈버거 2세 명의로 된 사과문에서 "뉴욕 타임스 1백52년 역사상 최악의 사태이자 엄청난 불명예"라면서 "신문과 독자들 간의 신뢰를 무너뜨린 배신 행위였다"고 사과했다.
그동안 확인된 것만 해도 블레어 기자가 뉴욕 타임스에 게재한 허위 기사의 수준과 정도는 상식을 초월한다. "도대체 편집진은 뭘하고 있었기에 이런 엉터리 기사가 나가는 걸 방치했느냐"는 힐난이 나올 만하다.
블레어 기자는 지난달 19일 이라크전에서 부상해 돌아온 미군 병사들의 이야기를 보도했다.
기사는 베세즈다의 해군병동에 입원한 한 병사가 "이라크군의 지뢰에 다리가 잘린 옆자리의 동료를 생각하면 나의 감상적 고통이 과연 정당한 것인지 의문이 든다"고 말한 것으로 전했다. 너무나 절절하고 생생한 이 고백은 2면의 '오늘의 말말말'난에까지 실렸다.
블레어 기자는 또 병동에 있는 6명의 병사와 인터뷰했다면서 그들의 발언을 인용했다. 하지만 다 거짓말이었다. 블레어는 병사들과 만난 사실조차 없었다. 보도된 발언들은 경쟁사인 워싱턴 포스트를 비롯해 이 신문 저 신문에 나온 얘기들을 짜깁기한 것이었다.
블레어는 또 지난 3월 27일엔 이라크군의 포로가 됐다가 구출된 제시카 린치 일병의 스토리를 내보냈다.
기사는 "제시카의 아버지가 언덕 위의 집 문간에 서서 담배밭과 농장을 바라보며 목이 메었다"고 묘사했다. 하지만 그 집은 언덕이 아니라 계곡에 있고, 주변에는 담배밭이나 농장이 아예 없다는 것이다.
블레어 기자는 현장에 가는 대신 사진기자가 찍어온 사진을 보고 현장 르포 기사를 작성하는 수법을 사용했다고 뉴욕 타임스는 밝혔다. 기사 표절 의혹이 제기된 4월 말 뉴욕 타임스의 편집진은 그에게 "정말로 현장에서 관계자 인터뷰를 했느냐"고 다그쳤다.
그러자 블레어 기자는 붉은 지붕의 하얀집, 집 앞에 서 있는 지프, 정원의 장미꽃 등을 그린 듯이 묘사했다. 비밀은 나중에 풀렸다. 그는 인터넷을 통해 자기 신문 사진부에 들어가 현장 사진을 검색해 본 뒤 마치 자신이 갔다 온 것처럼 거짓말을 한 것이다.
1999년 뉴욕 타임스 인턴 기자로 일을 시작한 블레어는 남들보다 훨씬 열심히 일하고 기사도 많이 썼다. 동시에 그가 쓴 기사의 신뢰성에 대한 의문도 편집국 내부에서 계속 제기됐다.
하지만 뉴욕 타임스는 간간이 '특종'을 날리는 그를 의심은 하면서도 계속 일을 시켰고, 결국 창사 이래 최대 망신을 당하게 된 것이다.
뉴욕 타임스는 자신들이 실수하게 된 과정을 소상히 보도하면서 전 편집국장 에이브 로젠털의 발언을 인용했다.
"이 직업에서 잘못을 발견했을 때 할 수 있는 유일한 일은 최대한 빨리 잘못을 정정하는 것이다."
April 24, 2014
Written by WashingtonsBlog
Mainstream Media Is Being Forced to Retract Its Propaganda More and More Quickly
The New York Times pushed fabricated evidence in the run up to the Iraq war. A year later, the newspaper apologized for its inaccurate, one-sided coverage.
The U.S. and the New York Times pretended that Syria’s government was responsible for the chemical weapons attack … but that claim was debunked, and even the New York Times was forced to retract it several months later. (The alternative media, including Pulitzer prize winning reporter Seymour Hersh, has also pointed out that it was the Syrians rebels – with the help of the Turkish government – did it).
Then the U.S. and the New York Times pretended that they had proof that Russian soldiers were the mysterious “masked men” seizing government buildings in Ukraine. But a couple of days later, they were forced reporting from the alternative media – especially Robert Parry, winner of the George Polk Award for National Reporting – into retracting that claim, and admitting that their “proof” was almost as flimsy as proof of Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction”.
It seems like the alternative media is forcing the New York Times to retract half-baked, pro-war, propaganda claims more and more quickly.