The Off Topic Topic

[Sheilbh]

Exactly - add into the material challenges of transmitting news, especially in wartime with restrictions of various censorship regimes. And as you say to HVC's point it's not necessarily speed over accuracy but there's a far harder deadline for print. Admittedly the Times gets it better than the tabloids (and both get it better than the Daily Worker) but that's hardly a surprise Also related to that is that there were evening editions instead of just refreshing.

As I say looking at archive sites I'm amazed at the volume of news that was still being produced or that there was a wire reporter for British papers in Helsinki in 1939. Obviously there was false reporting - in that era and the Soviets immediately brings Walter Duranty to mind - but I think it's pretty good to be honest.

In a way I think the immediacy of information now maybe gives a false sense of security or transparency of information. If you want to wait for actual knowledge then you'll need the second draft of history not the first - and even that will be revised 30 years later with further research

[Syt]

I was looking for newspapers on archive.org and saw a Hong Kong paper covering the news in a similar way on the 1st. And yes, they had an early, late and final edition, i.e. three print runs per day (each about 12 pages).

[Tamas]

Still if the "surrender" news came just before they went to print they could had put a question mark at the end of the headline news but they didn't because as HVC wrote they went for the "clickbait"

[Syt]

Sure, they need to sell copies, but I'm also not sure if there was much incentive needed in those times, during time of war. And obviously any kind of reporting during rapid developments can be fraught with inaccuracies and false assumptions. We've seen it during the Russian invasion of Ukraine most recently where determining what happens when and where, esp. in the early stages could be all over the place (like Russian war planning ); I'd argue we are having the benefit of being able to verify more sources against each other, and faster. A lot of people don't do that, but the option is there.

[garbon]

In a way I think the immediacy of information now maybe gives a false sense of security or transparency of information. If you want to wait for actual knowledge then you'll need the second draft of history not the first - and even that will be revised 30 years later with further research

Do we think that? I think we see all the time that initial reporting is inaccurate and even when the narrative coalesces we are left with open questions.

I'm not sure when actual knowledge arrives given it will always continue to be revised.

[Tamas]

Sure, they need to sell copies, but I'm also not sure if there was much incentive needed in those times, during time of war. And obviously any kind of reporting during rapid developments can be fraught with inaccuracies and false assumptions. We've seen it during the Russian invasion of Ukraine most recently where determining what happens when and where, esp. in the early stages could be all over the place (like Russian war planning ); I'd argue we are having the benefit of being able to verify more sources against each other, and faster. A lot of people don't do that, but the option is there.

I disagree about incentives. The incentive was competition.