Nah, the outlet is 1000% doing it's job here. I'd have gone in even harder myself, they went easy on her.
Don't blame her, blame her reviewers and phd directors who didn't catch her mistake.
Wow. Think of all the time she spent on this book and a lot of it is just plain wrong because she and her editors didn't google "death recorded". At least for me the correct definition is the first result which is on Wikipedia.
In British courts, beginning in 1823, a sentence of death recorded meant that the judge was abstaining from issuing a capital punishment sentence in cases where the judge foresaw that a royal pardon would be forthcoming if a proper death sentence were issued. Royal pardons for capital punishment had become routine at the time for most common crimes. A death recorded sentence allowed the judge to meet common law sentencing precedent while avoiding mocking by the sentenced or the public who realised an actual death penalty sentence was likely to be overridden.[1][2][3]
Because the term means the opposite of a death sentence, it has caused confusion among some 21st century authors.[4]
How unbelievably embarrassing. I think it's weird that no follow-up research on the subjects revealed that they were alive after "Death Recorded" which would have tipped her off to the term being something other than she thought it was, but good on her for handling it well.
Well yeah i mean her options were raving lunatic who denies everything, mea culpa, or radio silence. I'm sorry but judging by her past i'm not giving her points for admitting she's a terrible researcher.
Does anyone have the full interview exchange? I want to hear the rest of it, especially her response to the point about the man being pardoned from raping a child. Did she not know that his case was based on rape or did she know and still lump this rape case in with gay men being punished for homosexual love? I'm not sure which would be worse.
Her options also included attacking the guy who pointed it out, downplaying it, pretending it didn't matter at all, being sullen or defensive, etc., etc., but she didn't, unlike many other people when confronted with embarrassing mistakes. I might not like her or her work, but I can admit she handled it in a classy way. That's not giving her a pass for bad research.
It's the BBC - they're paid for by the taxpayer, not clicks or hits. They challenge pretty much everyone/everything.Huh. Inviting her to a interview and dropping this bomb live on air is not very cool at all IMO. There were less sensationalist ways to handle this.
No idea what she did in her past. She's probably not the brightest licht.Well yeah i mean her options were raving lunatic who denies everything, mea culpa, or radio silence. I'm sorry but judging by her past i'm not giving her points for admitting she's a terrible researcher.
No idea what she did in her past. She's probably not the brightest licht.
But admitting mistakes is more than a lot of people here are capable of. Always a good thing.
For the record, Naomi Wolf went cuckoo for cocoa puffs during the Obama administration.
Owww... Well, maybe find another hobby.
I mean, she had the definition of "death" and the definition of "recorded" right. She just didn't realize that in random sentences of her documents the words death recorded when combined had a specific definition compared than when they are not combined.
In the spirit of 'transfarring', I reckon it means 'Death's trending'This is true. What the hell does Death Stranding mean, anyway?
Huh. Inviting her to a interview and dropping this bomb live on air is not very cool at all IMO. There were less sensationalist ways to handle this.
A vomitorium isn't actually where people threw up. It's a misconception.
Iunno, maybe she stopped researching after the death recorded part. Maybe they just lived very dull lives after they got out of prison. I don't know what she was thinking.
Considering her ugly history discussed earlier in the thread, was she really a respected academic?jesus... I've never read wolf but always understood her to be quite a respected author and academic, hard to see how this could happen :|
It's similar to a suspended sentence. We have a section 12 bond here in Australia in which your conviction is recorded but the custodial sentence is suspended.
Got this women mixed up with Naomi Klein. Thank God it wasn't her.
Yeah that was not the note I thought they were going to leave off on, but damn if it didn't make me wonder about what the book actually said on the topic...Oh no.
And the last 5 seconds of that audio clip... That's, uh, quite a cliffhanger.
I mean, she thought that ISIS killing Americans was a false flag created by... like the Deep State or something.
She's incredibly not bright.
On this occasion she is a left wing conspiracy theorist sadly. According to the wiki she also started up conspiracy theories around occupy and other shit too.This is a perfect example of right-wing conspiracy theorist, LOL. Their research is as good as this author's.
This is a perfect example of right-wing conspiracy theorist, LOL. Their research is as good as this author's.
Considering her ugly history discussed earlier in the thread, was she really a respected academic?
"Sentence: suspended."
"Hm. That's a strange way to say 'hanged.'"
*writes enormous book*
Nah, I like it. Lay out some linguistic traps for researchers.This is why we need to maintain linguistic purity. "Death recorded" should not imply "pardoned/no death" any more than "literally" should imply "figuratively".
Linguistic purity only works if you also don't have any evolution in languages over time, which isn't really all that realistic. It's also not predictable, just look at the changing meaning of "gay". How would anyone, say, in the 1970s ever predict it would become synonymous with "male homosexual"?This is why we need to maintain linguistic purity. "Death recorded" should not imply "pardoned/no death" any more than "literally" should imply "figuratively".
Don't blame her, blame her reviewers and phd directors who didn't catch her mistake.
When dealing with historic sources the very first thing you do is to read up on the language it's recorded in. That is the bare minimum to even begin understanding a historic source. Especially when dealing with legal documents.I mean seriously, would anyone hearing "Death recorded" think "Well gee, I better look up the definition of that phrase!?"
No, most people would read "death recorded" as though the person was executed and their death was then recorded in the record...
Whoever thought of that phrase then decided it should be used to mean someone was pardoned is a fucking idiot, anyone with common sense could get that mixed up, and I don't blame her for letting it slip by, as it's something I'm sure most people wouldn't have even thought of it meaning that in the first place either.