Comments on: Welcome to the era of gullibility 2.0

Last week's fake iPhone news was a wake-up call for a public now looking to the Web for scoops, leaks and gossip.

[worldboy]

Attribute or post as Rumor

Engadget could have published the "Apple" email as
"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.

[ghostofitpast]

Missing the point

worldboy writes, "Journalists and Bloggers need a refresher on news standards."

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.)

[Renegade Knight]

If your source is good:q

Then your source is good. All the naysayers in the world don't change the accuracy of the orginal source.

It happens that the story was false. Of course Apple appears to be the source for that story as well.

[Revolutn]

Cast no stone

"Would readers cut The New York Times the same slack?"

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

[cparente]

Different Standards

You ask in the article whether such a mistake would be tolerated in mainstream media -- the answer is no. Look at the furor that surrounded CBS' reporting of Bush's National Guard service, later proven fraudulent.

If bloggers want to be first, simply state when info is unverified. Then let the "gullible" decide for themselves.

[Renegade Knight]

Accountability in Media

In my work I seldom if ever see the media accuractly report on anything that I know about.

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.

[Stating]

Old Media Half Truths, Lies

The traditional old media in my opinion is no more trustworthy than online new media sources. Traditional media routinly engages in reporting half truths and slanting stories that fit their agenda. Just pick up a copy of the San Francisco Chronical for instance. Stories constantly paint anarchists, Lefties, and perverts in a postive light, and traditional, middle class folks in a negative light. Unlicensed, unregulated "medical pot" clubs are celebrated. Every pro-illegal immigration rally is celebrated, with NO discussion about the disasterous effects of millions of people spilling over the border. Would the Chronicle ever do a story about how legal residents, taxpayers, have to wait 6 hours in a hospital emergencey room because it is filled with illegals seeking free treatment? No. Would the Chronicle ever do a story about how unemployed Black youth haev no jobs because illegals are hired instead? No. Would the Chronicle ever do a story about how restaurant patrons orders are messed up because illegals can't speak English? No. Would the Chronicle ever do a story about how school funding is hijacked to pay for hordes of illegals' children who cannot read or write in English? No. Would the Chronicle ever do a story about how illegals come into this country and spread communicable diseases like tuberculosis? No.

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?