- Related Stories
-
Wired but not Web 2.0? That's normal, study says
May 7, 2007 -
Web 2.0--the folly of amateurs?
April 6, 2007 -
Rewriting ethics rules for the new media
April 5, 2007 -
Blogging's not the enemy, says Dan Rather
March 13, 2007 -
Hoax briefly shaves $2.5 billion off Emulex's market cap
August 25, 2000
(continued from previous page)
That's not to say mainstream news outlets haven't had their fair share of factual gaffes. In March, MSNBC ran a story, pulled from a political Web site, saying Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was suspending his campaign. As Engadget did last week, MSNBC corrected the error, admitted its mistake, and moved on with the news.
The ultrafast, competitive nature of online reporting and publishing is here to stay. That means readers must adapt and be aware of the circumstances, said Sree Sreenivasan, a professor at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, who specializes in new media. "I read lots of journalism on blogs, and think that as with anything--with anything I read in any publication, print or on the Web--I always am skeptical, and we've got to be skeptical about everything we see."
It's not just readers. Finance pundit and Wallstrip blogger Howard Lindzon said he was astonished by the stock-trading frenzy that occurred in the wake of the original Engadget post. "People got scared," he said in an interview. They "saw the stock go down $4, and they panicked."
It's not the first time a fake rumor has had reverberations in a company's stock: Networking-equipment company Emulex temporarily lost $2.5 billion in 2000 after a fake press release hit the Internet.
"I read new media for stocks, because I think there's some good stuff out there," Lindzon said. "At the same time, I don't act on anything I read. It's noise to me." In other words, the breakneck pace of blog publishing doesn't have to apply to readers--especially those who might have a financial stake in what's published.
But amid all the talk of a need for caution, there's a bright side, too. According to Sreenivasan, people's willingness to accept and believe the content of major blogs like Engadget is a sign that blogs are maturing into respected mainstream media. "There was a time when people didn't believe anything on television or on the radio, or when people would do phone interviews, and no one would believe that," he said. "Any society kind of adapts to the new medium for communication and for news gathering and for news distribution.
"Now, if there's news broken on Second Life, it wouldn't have a big impact, but who knows (if it will) many years from now?"
See more CNET content tagged:
Engadget,
rumor,
memo,
post,
blogger
"unsubstantiated" or "rumor", and still not missed a scoop if it
turned out to be true. In fact most Engaget readers who
commented on the original leak before the disavowel by Apple
were sceptical of the claim. (Which should have been an
indication to the author).
Engadget was gullible not their readers. They should do what
the vast majority of the equally news hungry Apple Web does
and make it clear that a post is a rumour but coming from a
normally reliable "Source". Just check Apple Insider, MacRumors,
MacOSRumors, MacMinute, and most of all Think Secret. The
Apple Web community is used to this form of "non"-attribution
and can evaluate it for veracity based on experience. The big
mistake Engadget made was to present the email as verifiable
NEWS.
Journalists and Bloggers need a refresher on news standards.
Attribution is not the same as self-censorship and it respects
the free flow of information. Otherwise the consequences for
stake-holders in a news event can be serious and far reaching
due to the nature of the internet.
Let's concentrate on the bloggers and let someone else hash out the "journalist professionalism" question. Just what is it that the bloggers would be refreshing? As I understand it, the whole premise of the blogosphere is that anyone can play, no matter how uninformed one may be of petty details like professional standards (let alone the world as it happens to be when you look closely at it). This is touted as a virtue by the Web 2.0 evangelists (among others). My own humble opinion is that this is making a virtue out of taking action without giving any consideration to consequences:
http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2007/05/financial-consequences-are-newsworthy.html
That is my own take on the world when I look closely at it. From this I can conclude only one lesson: LET THE READER BEWARE! (Unfortunately, this does not cover cases where the reader is not an active participant, such as the owner of that house in Tacoma that got trashed due to a bogus Craigslist item.)
It happens that the story was false. Of course Apple appears to be the source for that story as well.
Media personnel should not throw stones while living in glass houses.
I can think of several major life affecting issues that one media outlet or another has blown in very recent memory, let alone speculation over some gadget that has no REAL bearing on life. Unfortunately such speculation can and in this case did have an affect on share holders bottom line, which IS a potentially life altering in terms of balance sheets, short calls and retirement savings.
Like Yahoo's Ron Paul coverage after the first Republican Debate when he was left off their online poll, then added but disparaged, then they had to retract that as well.
The NY Times cited by the author routinely gets things wrong or ignores glaring facts of a story, in fact EVERY newspaper does, there's always a section called CORRECTIONS, but just like with this case, no one really remembers the correction or retration, but rather the first report.
Where I do agree however, is that things that are unconfirmed should at least carry a disclaimer on the TOP of the story / post, stating something to the effect that, While this is 'hot off the presses' it's unconfrimed and might be a hoax at this time. To not do so IS in fact irresponsible journalism.
Anyway, that's my .02
Later,
Rev
Infowars - because there IS a war on for you mind
Search terms Truthaction Third Stage
If bloggers want to be first, simply state when info is unverified. Then let the "gullible" decide for themselves.
The reason as best as I can figure is that they are Journalists. In my field I'm an expert. They are not. However they are the ones reporting, and they are needed to make those reports.
Their job is to do the best they can with what they have to work with, in the time frame they are working within. In that light I may make a better journalist within my own field insofar as accuracy and ignoring my ability to write (or not), but a worse one outside of it. Thus in that light, overall I'd say they do a good job.
So what kind of newspaper is this? Can you tell me that this medium is any more reliable than new media? Should I run my life based on what the Chronicle reports? Based on their slanted, half-truth stories?