The Americana and roots music authority
Accuracy In Internet Reporting- How do you know if what you are reading is actually true?
First just let me say that I feel like a fool.
On Thursday morning I posted on the ND site that Vic Chesnutt was in a coma and then updated the post later that night saying he had passed away which was erroneous at the time. (Sadly he did die, but not until Friday afternoon.)
That false information was blogged and tweeted extensively on the internet Thursday night and Friday morning, although I was relatively early in propagating the inaccurate information. I've been tracing the steps that got me there and while it might sound like excuses, In my mind the situation begs the questions "How do you know if the information you read on the internet is accurate?", "What can be considered "reliable sources" these days?", "Who will take on that role in the future as the trusted reliable sources of the past continue to dissolve?", etc.
So how did I get there? I was first tipped to the news that Vic was in a coma by a post by a fan on our Face Book page. I did a Google search and couldn't find any information so I did a Twitter search and traced the news to a forum on Kristen Hersh's website and then posted the information on the No Depression web site and also pushed it out via our Face Book and Twitter accounts.
Thursday evening a credible journalist friend sent me a text saying that Vic had passed away and I searched online and found that same news being reported by Billboard.com and three other blog sites so I went ahead and made the assumption that the information was accurate. I don't frequent Billboard's website so I have no knowledge as to the quality of the content contained there, but in my mind Billboard would be considered a "reliable source". No? (They have since updated the post with no acknowledgement of having previously posted inaccurate information.) Apparently their source was the Athen's Music Junkie blog, who sited a source close to the family, which I also saw and "appeared" to be credible.
The news then spread like wild fire via Twitter and the blogosphere with the report going out from various well known sources.
I have learned a valuable lesson about the dangers of believing what is posted on the web without having the information confirmed by a reliable source, but I do still wonder with the proliferation of blogs and twitter how we will know for sure and what checks and balances can be put in place to prevent situations like this from occurring in the future. Can we only trust the New York Times?
On Thursday morning I posted on the ND site that Vic Chesnutt was in a coma and then updated the post later that night saying he had passed away which was erroneous at the time. (Sadly he did die, but not until Friday afternoon.)
That false information was blogged and tweeted extensively on the internet Thursday night and Friday morning, although I was relatively early in propagating the inaccurate information. I've been tracing the steps that got me there and while it might sound like excuses, In my mind the situation begs the questions "How do you know if the information you read on the internet is accurate?", "What can be considered "reliable sources" these days?", "Who will take on that role in the future as the trusted reliable sources of the past continue to dissolve?", etc.
So how did I get there? I was first tipped to the news that Vic was in a coma by a post by a fan on our Face Book page. I did a Google search and couldn't find any information so I did a Twitter search and traced the news to a forum on Kristen Hersh's website and then posted the information on the No Depression web site and also pushed it out via our Face Book and Twitter accounts.
Thursday evening a credible journalist friend sent me a text saying that Vic had passed away and I searched online and found that same news being reported by Billboard.com and three other blog sites so I went ahead and made the assumption that the information was accurate. I don't frequent Billboard's website so I have no knowledge as to the quality of the content contained there, but in my mind Billboard would be considered a "reliable source". No? (They have since updated the post with no acknowledgement of having previously posted inaccurate information.) Apparently their source was the Athen's Music Junkie blog, who sited a source close to the family, which I also saw and "appeared" to be credible.
The news then spread like wild fire via Twitter and the blogosphere with the report going out from various well known sources.
I have learned a valuable lesson about the dangers of believing what is posted on the web without having the information confirmed by a reliable source, but I do still wonder with the proliferation of blogs and twitter how we will know for sure and what checks and balances can be put in place to prevent situations like this from occurring in the future. Can we only trust the New York Times?
Views: 33
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Janice Brooks on -
I was dealing with Steve Miller Obit writer at the defunct New York Sun over the rumors about Slim Whitman a couple years ago. It's a touchy issue
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Frankl on -
This was a tough story to verify, occurring as it did on Christmas Day. I felt badly that you got caught repeating the erroneous report, Kyla, because I know you meant well in sharing what you believed was verified news. Compounding the problem was that no one stepped in from Chesnutt's family, friends or management to share information and clear up misconceptions. Do they have a responsibility to do so? Of course not, but I'm sure they know that the ND community were among Vic's strongest supporters. It would have been nice.
I consider myself a "citizen-journalist" these days on Twitter, responsible only to the standard of sharing only information verifiable from a reliable source, preferably two or three. For me, that means, perhaps, New York Times, AP, Reuters, CNN, MSNBC, and major newspapers and media outlets. Anything less than that standard earns a disclaimer or caveat.
I spend much of my day staring at a computer screen, and when something catches my eye I like to run with it. It fascinates me to see how a story spreads from questionable sources like TMZ, E! and the blogging universe. I know that major news organizations also see these stories these stories as they begin to spread, but they'd rather be late to the party than disseminate false information. They certainly have the resources and manpower to verify these events that the rest of us lack. For whatever it's worth, I watched how they dealt with Michael Jackson and Brittany Murphy stories; both deaths were first reported by TMZ but no one seemed to trust their veracity. Citing TMZ as a source remained part of the reporting for at least an hour in each case.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugo Traeger on -
Kyla, you are hitting upon an issue that has been bothering me for a while. Working in the media business I find that Twitter (and even Facebook updates) are feeding me business news stories many, many hours before I see them reported in an "official" news source. I do try to weigh the sources credibility but find this information generally accurate.
And what's an official news source anyway? All media is faced with dramatic cutbacks in staff. Here in the Bay Area, the San Francisco Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News along with their accompanying web sites are running on skeleton staffs. Who is going to report local news? Or any news for that matter?
-
Permalink Reply by Jake London on -
Tough call. On the internet, I think we trade speed for accuracy sometimes. Probably, in the aggregate we get more useful/accurate stuff faster this way, just because we get so much more in absolute terms. But the accuracy percentage is going to be lower, because there is less time to verify, etc.
On the other hand, since it's digital and not fixed on a paper page, it can be updated much more easily and people get those updates much faster. That's probably something that needs more thought: The rules/protocols for doing these kinds of updates.
I've also found that it is increasingly important to try and be aware of what sources are being cited. I did some research on Vitamin D a while back. After an hour or two on Google, skimming through say 40 articles, it became clear that two or three of the articles had provided most of the information for the other 37. That wasn't surprising, but it was eye opening.
Especially for those of us who grew up before the internet, this probably means rejiggering our expectations about what sort of truth claims a given on-line publication can reasonably make at a given time, and being better at recognizing that the "final truth" may take more time to unfold.
It's easy to belittle sources like TMZ, etc. But increasingly, it seems like they often do break stories that turn out to be true, because they are willing to run with the story while its foundation is still a little more provisional than most MSM outlets.
I also find I get a lot of useful info from my social network. Sure, plenty of it is just people re-posting stuff they've seen on the internet (filtering), but the bigger your network is, the more likely it is that someone in it has some closer connection to what's going on.
FWIW, in this case, my best source of info on Vic turned out to be Gary Heffern's status updates on Facebook. I think he may have known Vic, or at least he knows people who know him, and he is the one who posted something from a person who was evidently at the hospital and could confirm that Vic had not passed yet.
But if I didn't know Heff and a little bit about the people he knows, I suspect I would have been a bit more skeptical about his status updates.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Dowder on -
This was a tricky situation, but it seems like most internet "reporting" has devolved into just cutting and pasting from another blog. Aren't "journalists" (and I realize that most bloggers aren't really journalists) supposed to verify stories through several reliable and independent sources (which would seem to indicate actually talking to or corresponding with someone close to the situation - not just reading Twitter feeds and forum postings). It was curious that while Billboard had reported Chesnutt's passing, Kristen Hersh's Twitter feed had not (and throughout this story Hersh seemed to be the original and most reliable source). In any event, I hope people take the time to donate to Vic's family: http://kristinhersh.cashmusic.org/vic/
-
Permalink Reply by Wendy Schweiger on -
Oh Kyla, thank you for posting this and for your candor. A few thoughts, and forgive the length:
First, I can't emphasize enough that seeing something online in several venues - even if those venues are normally deemed trustworthy - does not mean it is true. Maybe someday it will mean that, but right now, with everyone breaking their necks to be FIRST in this age of multiple media and social media outlets, accuracy and fact-checking have gone by the boards. Content providers, whoever they are, too often feel they've done their job just by moving "information" along. And in this case, "information" means "somebody said something." Where I come from, that's not journalism, but it has become journalism. Very disturbing.
Second, think back to what happened with Michael Jackson, basically the same kind of thing, really. People were reporting what TMZ had to say because nothing official was available. Why anyone would feel right in announcing something so monumental without confirmation is beyond me, but it happened. And it happened the year before with a Congresswoman from Ohio! Our own governor announced this woman had died suddenly despite the fact that absolutely no one associated with her office or family was confirming it and there were numerous conflicting reports - very shaky ground to be on. He later had to eat crow, even though it did, as with Vic, ultimately turn out to be true.
Third, the New York Times isn't as perfect as we'd like to think it is, so I wouldn't fall into that trap either. When Walter Cronkite died, their obituary, which had been pre-written, as obits for famous people often are, had something like 8 mistakes in it, for which they later had to apologize after their public editor explained to the readers how something like that could even happen.
Fourth, I am finding, in situations like this, that Wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources out there when news is breaking - in the sense that they try to be very meticulous in NOT saying something is true just because the rumor mill says it is. In Vic's case, yesterday when most everyone else had him already deceased, their page on him only reported that he was in a coma. If I remember correctly they did the same thing with Michael Jackson - refused to update the page until the family/hospital confirmed the death. I'm not saying they're perfect either, but when a story is breaking Wikipedia does an amazing job of vetting information - and because it's open source, you can watch it happening.
When it pertains to a story about a death or severe medical condition, the upshot is, if you want to be sure, you've got to wait until a family representative or law enforcement authority or coroner or hospital (privacy laws complicate this) makes an official announcement. It can't be somebody close to somebody who's close to somebody else. It definitely can't be someone spouting off on Twitter, or even an industry trade pub. The story may turn out to be true - but the key here is: when will you (we) be comfortable in the knowledge that it is?
-
Permalink Reply by Easy Ed on -
Just looking at publications which are still alive and thriving should be an indication of the importance of accurate information. While some of us may treasure getting the facts straight, most could care less. In the go-go world of the internet, we get the news in bytes and it's meant to grab our attention as an entertainment vehicle with no need for it to be verified or trustworthy. (In fact, the truth is less entertaining than the reality in most cases, isn't it?)
So who will handle that responsibility in the future? I don't know...does anybody really handle it now?
That said...you did exactly what most of us would have. Poke around on the web, look for some secondary source and then run with it. Your intentions were good, you did what you did, you feel a bit foolish and now you just move on.
I would like to take exception to Ron's remarks here:
Compounding the problem was that no one stepped in from Chesnutt's family, friends or management to share information and clear up misconceptions. Do they have a responsibility to do so? Of course not, but I'm sure they know that the ND community were among Vic's strongest supporters. It would have been nice.
When a loved one is in trouble and you're standing in a hospital waiting room hoping and praying for a good outcome, I don't think anyone should have the expectation that you should be contacting the ND community to fill them in on the details. I'm going to venture out here and say that Vic probably didn't roll with an entourage or have a public relations spokesperson standing at the bedside. Our collective tabloid mentality makes it seem that we are entitled to get information about public figures. We are not.
-
Permalink Reply by Kim Ruehl on -
Something occurred to me while reading through these responses: for most of us in this community, our measure of accurate reporting was formed from newspapers. A daily newspaper has time to verify sources, etc., since they print what happened yesterday. The internet prints what's happening right now.
Where papers had staffs inside an office and in the field, working "behind the scenes" to report the news, the internet provides no such luxury. The fact checking and verification process does indeed take place on Twitter and Facebook, in communities like this one, and in the blogosphere. It just doesn't happen behind the scenes, and it isn't given the time to wait until we go to print to make sure our facts are in order. News evolves now.
Contrary to what someone mentioned on here, many bloggers are indeed journalists (there aren't enough print jobs to go around for J-school grads anymore), and those who do so for a living recognize the gravity of printing something about someone's death, a major world event, etc. I'm surprised I haven't seen more conversations like this one pop up around such events, but I'm glad we're having it here now.
I think what happened here is that folks watched Kyla come to the truth, which was eventually reached. I think this is the way reporting is going to happen in this new medium, and we'd all be better served to not expect that the first report is the final report. I don't think there's any integrity lacking in crowd-sourced reporting, providing that we enter into it knowing that the truth is something we'll find out together, and if news is going to evolve in public now, we have to allow that. I think reputable sources will have to post updates and corrections as soon as they know them, and know when to admit they received bad information.
-
Permalink Reply by Easy Ed on
-
What you describe is exactly what the raw feed for AP and UPI looked like, and maybe they still do. All the information, verified or not, would stream into the newsrooms and it was up to the editors to sift through the tape to determine what would be used and what needed to be fleshed out a bit more.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Morris on -
RE that NY Times Cronkite obit, the Times did the best they could. The writer in question, Alessandra Stanley, is notably accuracy-challenged -- her copy was so frequently riddled with errors that she was actually assigned her own copy editor. (Honest.) Why they think so much of her stuff, I don't know. Any other writer who committed as many egregious errors as she did in that one piece -- about a journalist, no less -- would be terminated with extreme prejudice at just about any other outlet imaginable. But the air gets a little thin near the top at the Grey Lady, I guess.
In the case of the Cronkite obit, the problem wasn't a matter of inadequate resources, as was the case with most of the outfits that ran early Chesnutt obits. Even with all their cutbacks, the Times still has one of the deepest staffs of any daily in the nation. Sadly, the editors let a chronically incompetent writer's copy coast through the system. It was just another shameful chapter in the Paper of Record's sorry recent history.
As someone who spent 18 years on the staff of Billboard, it saddens me to see them stub their toes -- and it angers me that they didn't have the institutional fortitude to admit their error. Instead, they just took down the premature post, and tossed it back up again after Chesnutt's death was confirmed. Pa-the-tic.
-
Permalink Reply by Christian West Wilkerson on
-
Kyla...I grew up in a small town in west Texas, my dad had the newspaper. I spent many miserable days stuck there working when I would have rather been anywhere else, while he hammered about how lucky I was having an opportunity to learn a trade. He had come from a big city daily to this small town and one thing that was a big deal to him was three separate, verifiable sources before printing. I thought he was nuts. Later and farther down the road I began work as a journalist before playing music stole me away and I saw with some sense of fear how networks, etc. seemed to abandon truth for being timely..."we have to put something out!". That was in the seventies and eighties. Now, it's not even much of an issue. Guys like Dan Rather are certainly a case in point. Hearing your distress about Vic's family and other readers make me feel that all is not lost, and I share your feelings, having myself done damage by being responsible for printing something that wasn't quite factual in my hurry to get it out at the cost of hurting someone else. Even being diligent, mistakes are sometime made, and in your case, I am sure everyone understands your heartfelt distress and it seems to me, no harm was done. Thank you for your efforts to clear things up.
© 2012 Created by No Depression.
Badges | ND Terms Of Use | ND Privacy Policy | Report an Issue | Terms of Service
