Journalistic ethics question: If you post a blog entry today & then discover you made a factual error, you should correct it. However, what if you look at something you wrote, say, 5 years ago and realize that you had something factually wrong at the time? 1/
You can obviously add a correction, but what if the entire premise (or a major portion of it) turns out to simply be dead wrong? Do you delete/unpublish it? Add a note at the top saying "everything below turned out to be nonsense?" How far back do you take that sort of thing?
For instance, here's my very first ACA Signups blog post, which I wrote over at @DailyKos back on October 11, 2013, before ACASignups.net was even created. I added the following catch-all mea culpa for the first month of entries: acasignups.net/21/05/07/84000…
Making this even more complicated: Let's say your post from 5+ years ago quotes *another* source which later turns out to have had *their* facts wrong. I don't mean deliberate disinformation, I mean they simply made a mistake. How far down the rabbit hole do you go?
Don't ask me how, but this issue somehow arose out of a discussion with my son about how badly the CGI effects in "The Last Starfighter" have aged since 1984 (we were mainly discussing George Lucas massively overdoing the effects in the Star Wars Special Editions.)
We were discussing when it's appropriate for someone to "clean up" their prior work and when they should leave well enough alone. In Lucas' case, digitally remastering the originals and cleaning up visible wires, graininess, etc was fine...but he didn't know when to stop.
Also, from a cultural touchstone POV, LucasFilm has been such an important part of our technological and pop cultural history that it's important to *see* how special effects have developed over time.
The prosthetic head in the "eye surgery" scene from the original Terminator was *terrible*, but I don't think Cameron has gone back to fix it even though it'd be simple to do these days, has he?
On the other hand, I read he edited Titanic to get the *night stars* correct!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In Pulp Fiction, while Winston Wolf’s character in undeniably cool, why exactly did Vincent & Jules need his help in the first place? Aside from telling them to take the car/body to Monster Joe’s, what other vital advice did he actually provide them with?
He tells them to put the body in the trunk, clean up the blood & guts, cover the seats with old towels, and drive the car to a place where it/Marvin’s body can be disposed of. They couldn’t figure any of that out on their own?
Several folks have noted that they’re not too bright and many people panic in a crisis situation...but they’re supposed to be professional hitmen. Shooting & killing people is kind of their thing. Have they never been expected to clean up the mess if something goes wrong?
📣 THE BIG ONE: CALIFORNIA: #ACA Medi-Cal expansion enrollment up 17% since COVID hit; total Medi-Cal enrollment up 9%: acasignups.net/21/06/09/calif…
⚠️ If the Supreme Court strikes down the #ACA (their ruling could come as soon as TOMORROW), up to 5.85 MILLION Californians would lose their healthcare coverage, in most cases likely almost immediately.
HEY HEALTHCARE TWITTER: Does anyone know what the heck happened to *non-ACA* Medi-Cal enrollment in Sept/Oct 2017?? I find it difficult to believe that 2 million people suddenly enrolled in a single month w/out any major expansion policy going into effect. cc: @aewright
Yesterday, @DrSriram (who I have great respect for) snidely claimed that those who support a PO over M4All define "universal" coverage as "excluding reproductive rights."
I noted in passing that some (not all) M4All folks are willing to do just that. This was his response: 1/
🚨🚨🚨 Yeah, here we go again: The fate of the #ACA & healthcare coverage for *up to 35 million* Americans could be decided THIS MORNING. acasignups.net/21/06/06/here-…
As @CMSGov confirmed yesterday, the total number of Americans who would lose healthcare coverage if the Supreme Court strikes down the #ACA is likely over 31 million...and possibly as high as 35 million by my estimates in a worst-case scenario. acasignups.net/21/06/05/aspe-…
Anyway, as always, @SCOTUSblog will be live-blogging this morning's opinions, which start at 10am. Opinions are posted every 10 minutes. There's 23 cases left to announce from this session, presumably between now and June 30, minus weekends. scotusblog.com/2021/06/announ…