00:00Hello, I know there are many, even within the viewer team, who consider this section to be a
00:05cough
00:06which instead of offering some transparency only serves to give greater visibility to the errors
00:12and to give space to conspiracy theories about them.
00:17Stubbornness or not, yes, @ nurcita, here I am to say that we were wrong
00:22And yes, I'm embarrassed, lest you think this is as funny to me as you seem to imply in your
00:28ear pull.
00:29It was a lack of judgment, but due to a lack of attention, not to imply anything else.
00:35And I know it was just a lapse in attention, serious yes, but not malicious, because the original article and its
00:42They had no problem with the title.
00:44It was in this news story about the decision to order Angie Rodríguez to retract some accusations she made
00:52against Laura Sarabia.
00:53The problem was in Reders' post, and more specifically in X's, because as I already told you
01:00I've mentioned this here before,
01:02But I haven't been able to get all journalists to internalize it and comply with it.
01:06In X, the title is tiny, tucked inside the photograph, and the text that appears first and is visible is
01:13a hook that isn't even in the note,
01:15but underneath in the metadata, and sometimes it happens that journalists put the title and then add that
01:23additional information
01:24And they write something that is only understandable when attached to the headline, but that when separated can end up misinforming.
01:31And that's exactly what happened to us with that story, or with that post actually, because the guys
01:37They put the judicial department in that small extract
01:40what Angie Rodríguez had said about Laura Sarabia, which she was obliged to retract, as the headline stated.
01:49Obviously, in X those who only read the excerpt and didn't see the title hidden in the photo,
01:54They logically assumed that our news was the alleged complaint and not the obligatory retraction of that alleged complaint.
02:03complaint.
02:04Yes, shameful oversight, Nurcita.
02:07I did get emotional this Tuesday, thinking that I had finally won one of those battles that seem
02:14losses
02:14because of those errors that are so deeply ingrained and continue to be used,
02:18Upon picking up my printed newspaper and reading the date that marked three months since the earthquake,
02:25Our headline stated how neglected the situation was three months after the earthquake,
02:30Because a month and two months later we were full of headlines, one month after the earthquake, two months after the
02:36earthquake,
02:37And just as if a new earthquake were going to happen in a month, in two.
02:42But I tell you, the happiness was quite short-lived.
02:45Because when I finished with the print version, I switched to digital, and opening the homepage, we were broadcasting live on that
02:52moment
02:53Our forum on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the peace agreement with the FARC.
02:57And in the title, even on the event banner, everywhere it said 10 years after the agreement
03:04peace.
03:0510 years means that we are 10 years away from it happening.
03:08It's not the same as after 10 years, which does mean 10 years later.
03:13Well, we will continue the fight.
03:15And there we also find, in a very careless way, Julio César Rimbondoño's column from last weekend.
03:22It is certainly a problem to adjust the opinion columns in the printed newspaper.
03:26when they send texts above the stipulated size.
03:30The paper isn't made of rubber, and you have to make them fit.
03:32which is why sometimes you have to remove a few words from the columns.
03:37However, this must be done with extreme care so as not to affect the original text or its meaning.
03:43and if possible, not in style either.
03:46Well, this time in that column that contained extracts and commentaries on texts by various authors,
03:52The person who edited the text in the newspaper thought it was fine to leave only the title of that text.
03:59and suppress the author, which turned the following comment into a riddle.
04:05The Romanian was right, the article immediately stated,
04:10But without knowing the author's background, it had to be guessed.
04:13It is unforgivable to have removed Sioran's authorship.
04:16which stated that it should appear in the digital version as it was in the original text.
04:20Almost as unforgivable from the opinion team as highlighting Aldo Cívico's column
04:28with a grammatical error.
04:30That prominent figure said,
04:31Democracy is not sustained by the winner, but by the loser.
04:35Our mistake in editing,
04:37Something was left unfinished, as Don Jairo Alberto García said in his reprimand.
04:42because what Cívico wrote, and which was exactly as written in the column text, was
04:47I don't believe that democracy is sustained by the winner, it is sustained by the loser.
04:54Don Jairo Alberto also gave a rather friendly ear-pull
04:57due to an error in the holiday pastimes,
05:01in the section "How much do you know about?"
05:03This time dedicated to our columnist Piedad Bonner.
05:07Well, the second question of that quiz inquired about the university where Piedad had studied.
05:13whose first choice was the University of the Andes.
05:16Or I suppose it was the University of the Andes because the University of the Before
05:20I don't think that's how it appeared.
05:25And I'll end with a gentle reprimand to Giraldo P.
05:28Not very serious, but he's absolutely right because when he announced the auction in Paris
05:33of the first recognized photograph of Bogotá
05:36We set a maximum sales limit of 80,000 euros.
05:40But as he rightly says, in an auction there is no maximum selling price.
05:45Another thing is that that photograph was stuck for between 60,000 and 80,000 euros
05:51But if someone has the money and the desire to take it for more
05:55Well, nobody is going to tell him not to go over those 80 thousand euros.
06:00Well, that's all, see you later, bye.
06:12Thank you!
06:20Thank you!
06:21Thank you!
06:22Thank you!
06:22Thank you!
