Full Version: Verify then Publish
I found an interesting, albeit harmless, item regarding some false articles that had been published.
It is quite an example of ignorant, lazy (mis)reporting: Tom Hanks, Phishhead. Not.
In a nutshell: the AP, the New York Times and MTV reported that Tom Hanks made personal appearance at a recent concert in NYC. NEITHER of those "news" agencies (MTV is no news agency) felt it necessary to determine the veracity of the claim and published the "fact". Only problem is Tom Hanks was off on a "skiing holiday" and not in NYC.
This instance is a pretty harmless mistake in the grand scheme of things. The implication of this error is worse, however. What else are they getting wrong? And why are they not compelled by an interest to succeed (or perhaps their definitions of "success" in journalism are different than mine)?
It is quite an example of ignorant, lazy (mis)reporting: Tom Hanks, Phishhead. Not.
In a nutshell: the AP, the New York Times and MTV reported that Tom Hanks made personal appearance at a recent concert in NYC. NEITHER of those "news" agencies (MTV is no news agency) felt it necessary to determine the veracity of the claim and published the "fact". Only problem is Tom Hanks was off on a "skiing holiday" and not in NYC.
This instance is a pretty harmless mistake in the grand scheme of things. The implication of this error is worse, however. What else are they getting wrong? And why are they not compelled by an interest to succeed (or perhaps their definitions of "success" in journalism are different than mine)?
OK, so it looks like I'm alone here for now. That's OK. I know some of you will find some more examples of publish then verify soon.
In the meantime, I found another, MUCH more sinister article that shows the VERY REAL dangers of misinformation to which I had previously eluded: The case of the five vanishing suspects
Hopefully, most of you were aware that on December 29th, the FBI released a statement reporting they were looking for 5 suspects that may have crossed into the US illegally through Canada. The pictures of these five men were posted all over the media.
Now we get this article. There is no proof that the men have even entered the US, but the press, as usual, picked up the speculation-ball and ran with it, making crap up, as usual.
Where is the FCC on this? These networks should be fined for spreading misinformation. Advertisers get busted on this, so should broadcast companies. Maybe when spoken in a language the companies understand (money), they won't be so hurried to publish whatever they feel will sell.
In the meantime, I found another, MUCH more sinister article that shows the VERY REAL dangers of misinformation to which I had previously eluded: The case of the five vanishing suspects
Hopefully, most of you were aware that on December 29th, the FBI released a statement reporting they were looking for 5 suspects that may have crossed into the US illegally through Canada. The pictures of these five men were posted all over the media.
Now we get this article. There is no proof that the men have even entered the US, but the press, as usual, picked up the speculation-ball and ran with it, making crap up, as usual.
Where is the FCC on this? These networks should be fined for spreading misinformation. Advertisers get busted on this, so should broadcast companies. Maybe when spoken in a language the companies understand (money), they won't be so hurried to publish whatever they feel will sell.
I agree with you, Jaime... The press has an obligation to get its facts straight. They should at least include one of their famous little disclaimers like, "not all of the facts are in yet", or "unconfirmed sources are reporting", to ensure they're not passing off speculation in lieu of fact. It definitely speaks to the credibilty of the agencies that fail to confirm details before publishing stories.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.