Comments on: Incredible people in Cape Cod

By: sumac

sumac — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 02:06:25 +0000

Ooh, you’re right.

I tried to figure out how I made that mistake, and I think I have it. The file on Wikimedia Commons (where I found the photo) now identifies Shane (which I believe it did not do so before). But the description under “File History” says “Eugene O’Neill with his wife and daughter in Cape Cod, 1922.” I probably looked E.O’N. up on Wikipedia, found the names of his then wife and of his only daughter, Oona, and added them. What I didn’t do was look up Oona’s birth date, damn it.

It’s kind of great that I said “allegedly” when I thought it was correct. I’ll now put some kind of addendum in the caption.

Again, you are right — and I am sorry! Thank you for pointing that out.

By: Kevin Chef

Kevin Chef — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:12:38 +0000

Ironically, that’s not Oona O’Neill in the beach picture, but her older brother, Shane. Oona was yet 3 years from being.

By: sumac

sumac — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 18:05:50 +0000

In reply to Greg. But please don't leave anything you'll be sorry for.

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 18:00:32 +0000

“We also are in the process of removing Jeffrey’s questionable stories or passages of stories from capecodonline.com and will replace the suspect content with a note that explains why it was removed….

Yea but we haven’t got the chance to remove her contact information from capecodeonline.com. So if you want to leaveher a message, feel free

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/personalia?ID=kjeffrey

By: David Gans

David Gans — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 21:33:44 +0000

“By keeping these stories posted and clearly marked, we hope that our readers can help identify any sources whom we cannot track down.”

Crowdsourcing accuracy! It’s the new new new journalism!

By: sumac

sumac — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 21:14:28 +0000

It’s only a color quote
In a story otherwise lie-free
But it wouldn’t be make-believe
If you believed in me

By: marjorie

marjorie — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 21:08:31 +0000

Our mutual online pal Steve Silberman’s Facebook feed had a thread comparing the way this newspaper responded to the way Wired responded when a frequent contributor was found by independent investigator Adam Penenberg (who uncovered the fabrications of Stephen Glass) to have made up sources or quotations. Wired kept the pieces online, with a note “indicating what we have been unable to confirm about them and editing them, as noted, where appropriate.” Why? “By keeping these stories posted and clearly marked, we hope that our readers can help identify any sources whom we cannot track down.” Hm, OK…but two other publications, Technology Review and Infoworld, also published pieces by the writer, Michelle Delio, that contained unsubstantiated sources (bringing the total of her problematic stories to 30) and like The Cape Code newspaper, they opted to take the stories down. Delio’s response (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/12/michelle_delio_faked_sources/): “I don’t understand why my credibility and career are now hanging solely on finding minor sources that contributed color quotes to stories I filed months and years ago.” Well, “color quotes,” implying that it’s just a little painterly detail, do not belong in the fact-based journalism community. How are readers supposed to know what’s color and what’s, y’know, important and true? I think taking down news stories that have had anything pretend in them at all is the way to go.

By: sumac

sumac — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 21:07:32 +0000

You’re right, she should. But the paper can’t make her do it. (What are they going to do, fire her some more?)

By: Mim

Mim — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:57:59 +0000

fascinating… and I agree, the paper made a good apology. But where was Jeffrey herself in this apology? Surely she should apologize personally.