Comments on: From the Editor http://www.mint.com/blog/updates/from-the-editor/ The blog of the free, simple personal finance solution. Track all your spending automatically, find the best deals, save more money. And save the world. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:07:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Kim C http://www.mint.com/blog/updates/from-the-editor/comment-page-1/#comment-54718 Kim C Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:57:16 +0000 http://www.mint.com/blog/?p=12249#comment-54718 I admire the way you handled this one -- it's rare to see such a candid and sincere message from a big company. Kudos Lee and Intuit. While I am also curious about the post that caused such controversy I believe you've done the right thing by pulling the post. If the data was poorly sourced (and not something you stand behind in retrospect) it shouldn't have a place here. You learn a lot about a company when they make a mistake...nice to see you guys do the right thing. I admire the way you handled this one — it’s rare to see such a candid and sincere message from a big company. Kudos Lee and Intuit.

While I am also curious about the post that caused such controversy I believe you’ve done the right thing by pulling the post. If the data was poorly sourced (and not something you stand behind in retrospect) it shouldn’t have a place here.

You learn a lot about a company when they make a mistake…nice to see you guys do the right thing.

]]> By: Ellie K http://www.mint.com/blog/updates/from-the-editor/comment-page-1/#comment-54708 Ellie K Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:47:25 +0000 http://www.mint.com/blog/?p=12249#comment-54708 To the editor, You already accomplished the difficult part, which was acknowledging that you published material using biased/ questionable data sources, yet not identifying them as such. Your June 18 apology clearly demonstrates integrity and social responsibility. The next step should be to republish the graphic, with annotations identifying the sections based on data from those sources. You ARE protected by the First Amendment, and while you could've certainly left the infographic image unchanged, I suspect that the charter and objectives of Mint.com don't include a political or social policy agenda. But it is not right that you should feel so pressured that you retracted and completely removed the chart! Please re-publish it, annotated as you see fit. In that way, you are not making any statement of opinion regarding social policy, but instead, showcasing best practices of journalism, as well as supporting our right to free speech. Whether you amend the chart and reissue entirely is not that relevant. However, if you choose to do so, it is imperative that you first re-release the annotated original version of the chart and keep it available on the web. Otherwise there is the implication that you retracted work because it wasn't received favorably by the public, and yielded to public opinion by presenting a revised version of your original data-driven content. That isn't quite the case, but it wouldn't be far from the truth. Please re-place the chart as published originally, with corrections and caveats? To the editor,
You already accomplished the difficult part, which was acknowledging that you published material using biased/ questionable data sources, yet not identifying them as such. Your June 18 apology clearly demonstrates integrity and social responsibility.

The next step should be to republish the graphic, with annotations identifying the sections based on data from those sources. You ARE protected by the First Amendment, and while you could’ve certainly left the infographic image unchanged, I suspect that the charter and objectives of Mint.com don’t include a political or social policy agenda.

But it is not right that you should feel so pressured that you retracted and completely removed the chart! Please re-publish it, annotated as you see fit. In that way, you are not making any statement of opinion regarding social policy, but instead, showcasing best practices of journalism, as well as supporting our right to free speech.

Whether you amend the chart and reissue entirely is not that relevant. However, if you choose to do so, it is imperative that you first re-release the annotated original version of the chart and keep it available on the web. Otherwise there is the implication that you retracted work because it wasn’t received favorably by the public, and yielded to public opinion by presenting a revised version of your original data-driven content. That isn’t quite the case, but it wouldn’t be far from the truth.

Please re-place the chart as published originally, with corrections and caveats?

]]> By: JustEric http://www.mint.com/blog/updates/from-the-editor/comment-page-1/#comment-54677 JustEric Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:33:21 +0000 http://www.mint.com/blog/?p=12249#comment-54677 I agree that this article should not have been removed. It implies that we, as adults, are unable to make decisions or formulate opinions on our own. Most media coming into our homes and TV sets are biased, and we should not be afraid of opinions or dialogue on either side of the discussion. Don't pander to either side -- put the article out there and let people decide for themselves. I agree that this article should not have been removed. It implies that we, as adults, are unable to make decisions or formulate opinions on our own.

Most media coming into our homes and TV sets are biased, and we should not be afraid of opinions or dialogue on either side of the discussion.

Don’t pander to either side — put the article out there and let people decide for themselves.

]]> By: Herschel http://www.mint.com/blog/updates/from-the-editor/comment-page-1/#comment-54496 Herschel Sat, 19 Jun 2010 13:27:10 +0000 http://www.mint.com/blog/?p=12249#comment-54496 Please put the post back up and just cite the sources per graphic (unless most were from polarized sources) --- or, better yet, do the research necessary and repost the graphic with GOOD info. Those are numbers I'd be interested in seeing. You could even post a range and median to avoid furthering any group's idea. Please put the post back up and just cite the sources per graphic (unless most were from polarized sources) — or, better yet, do the research necessary and repost the graphic with GOOD info. Those are numbers I’d be interested in seeing. You could even post a range and median to avoid furthering any group’s idea. ]]> By: Josh T http://www.mint.com/blog/updates/from-the-editor/comment-page-1/#comment-54463 Josh T Sat, 19 Jun 2010 07:31:39 +0000 http://www.mint.com/blog/?p=12249#comment-54463 Please repost! We stand with the editor. Mint has gone politically correct on us. Please repost! We stand with the editor. Mint has gone politically correct on us. ]]> By: Tom Smithson http://www.mint.com/blog/updates/from-the-editor/comment-page-1/#comment-54423 Tom Smithson Sat, 19 Jun 2010 01:03:19 +0000 http://www.mint.com/blog/?p=12249#comment-54423 The commenters above are CORRECT to ask you to replace the post with a well-researched and documented article on the same topic, but I implore you not to do it. Please do a better job editing your writers - and leave the politics out. Your reputation is damaged when you swim out too far from shore. Becoming a provocative blogger will hurt your brand. The commenters above are CORRECT to ask you to replace the post with a well-researched and documented article on the same topic, but I implore you not to do it.

Please do a better job editing your writers – and leave the politics out. Your reputation is damaged when you swim out too far from shore. Becoming a provocative blogger will hurt your brand.

]]> By: Megan http://www.mint.com/blog/updates/from-the-editor/comment-page-1/#comment-54399 Megan Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:56:03 +0000 http://www.mint.com/blog/?p=12249#comment-54399 I'm sick of companies not wanting to post facts because the data isn't favorable according to the media or because it's a hot topic. Just because you might lose a few people who are upset Mint posts facts, doesn't make it necessary to apologize and delete it. Post something, and stand by it. Nice post Mr. Editor. I’m sick of companies not wanting to post facts because the data isn’t favorable according to the media or because it’s a hot topic. Just because you might lose a few people who are upset Mint posts facts, doesn’t make it necessary to apologize and delete it. Post something, and stand by it.

Nice post Mr. Editor.

]]> By: Paul http://www.mint.com/blog/updates/from-the-editor/comment-page-1/#comment-54397 Paul Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:51:07 +0000 http://www.mint.com/blog/?p=12249#comment-54397 Natalie, seeing as you read the earlier post, what exactly did you find incendiary? Do you not realize how much time and $ is being spent on enforcing immigration law? How about Obama trying to sue AZ...does that fit your ideal of 'further illumination'? Natalie, seeing as you read the earlier post, what exactly did you find incendiary? Do you not realize how much time and $ is being spent on enforcing immigration law? How about Obama trying to sue AZ…does that fit your ideal of ‘further illumination’? ]]> By: John http://www.mint.com/blog/updates/from-the-editor/comment-page-1/#comment-54393 John Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:32:22 +0000 http://www.mint.com/blog/?p=12249#comment-54393 If the post had errors, fix and repost. If it was accurate, repost. Just because people don't like the truth doesn't mean you can't state it. If the post had errors, fix and repost. If it was accurate, repost. Just because people don’t like the truth doesn’t mean you can’t state it. ]]> By: Rufus http://www.mint.com/blog/updates/from-the-editor/comment-page-1/#comment-54384 Rufus Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:20:37 +0000 http://www.mint.com/blog/?p=12249#comment-54384 Deleting the post was weak. Adding a disclaimer saying you regret it being too polarizing would have been fine. Deleting the post was weak. Adding a disclaimer saying you regret it being too polarizing would have been fine. ]]>