4 comments

  1. Ari Herzog July 22nd, 2010 at 12:17 am

    I don’t understand. The NY Times was correct, then?

  2. Steve Lunceford July 22nd, 2010 at 7:31 am

    @Ari, sorry if it wasn’t clear. The NY Times had them ranked #3 and #4; as mentioned in next to last paragraph and the list, they actually come in at the #4 and #5 spots. So the NY Times was incorrect.

  3. Steve Lunceford July 22nd, 2010 at 11:58 am

    Just took an interesting call from the NY Times. While they researched the GovTwit/Twitter data and originally were going to run a correction (even sending me a draft), they ultimately decided against running.

    According the the researcher who contacted me today via phone, they debated the point and while conceding that @Astro_Mike is a federal employee who has higher follower numbers than @jaredcohen or @alecjross, they netted out that the *intent* of the story’s point was that they were 3rd/4th most followed in the political/appointee worlds.

    While I agree it’s a nit, I learned in J-school that “facts is facts” and if you get them wrong you simply correct and move on; strange for such a small thing that a “newspaper of record” such as The NY Times doesn’t want to simply update the story to reflect the facts versus relying on the reader’s ability to discern the author’s intent.

  4. Beth July 22nd, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    I think @Astro_Mike should be on the list. But no, he’s not political. He has a higher appointment — space. ;)

Add your comments