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 B. Dutch Seyfarth on -
I definitely believe that it's better to be late to the party reporting on something than being wrong but, being human, eventually we'll all roll the dice and end up wrong on something ya know?
Kim speaks the truth though; the need for a newspaper to accurately tell us what happened yesterday is no longer held in reverence in comparison to the unsubstantiated "news" websites and social networking sources that pass along rumors and hearsay as facts...It is sadly accepted these days that online "news sites" like Huffington Post, Slate.com, Google News, and others are considered news sources when they are really only aggregators of "other blog sites" rather than being actual news organizations with actual journalists.
--
I had the pleasure of meeting Vic many years ago circa 1994 when he was the opener act for an east coast band on the rise called "Live" at Boulder Colorado's tiny Fox Theatre. His smoky voice and frail physical appearance combined to create an atmosphere that forced hushed voices and rapt attention upon the 150 or so people in attendance. We got to meet Vic after the show and being awestruck teenagers who looked at anyone on a concert stage as superstars, we were genuinely surprised that he was really just as normal a guy in some ways as we were.
I remember about 6 or 7 years later when one of Vic's songs was included in every Windows XP operating system with Windows Media Player as a sample song. With much pride and gloating I got to tell everyone I was one of the lucky people who got see him perform live. I'm not sure if Vic ever toured back to Colorado after the mid 90's due to his frail condition so I certainly have always counted myself lucky to have seen him perform.
RIP Vic,
B. Dutch Seyfarth
Underwriting Manager - KGNU 88.5FM and 1390AM
Music Critic - the Westword Weekly - www.westword.com
-
Permalink Reply by RP N10 on -
Here's another current example - as reported in all the papers yesterday and again tomorrow:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8436535.stm
-
Permalink Reply by Easy Ed on -
I'm sorry....I read it in my local paper yesterday, heard it on the radio news and saw it on one of the tabloid TV shows last night. Therefore, it's a fact. Van Morrison will just have to accept that he's a new father again and is now married to a woman named GiGi. Anyway, it's a marvelous night for a diaper change.
-
Permalink Reply by Lafe Dutton on -
Not being a reporter, it appears simple to me: if your information is verified first hand (ie: you can quote "a spokesperson for the family"), you print it. If it's reporting on someone else's reporting, you attribute your source to them. It seems to me this is also more ethical.
If you'd written "According to articles on Billboard (www.linkhere) and several blogs, (news item here), you wouldn't be creating a potential problem for yourself or any loved ones of the deceased. If it weren't true, the reader who knew it wasn't true or wanted to check on it could go to that source.
But not being a reporter I probably shouldn't comment at all. It's like listening to a plumber's opinion about diamonds.
I like the way you are responding to it though. You are upset maybe, but not defensive. Don't you wish we were all as open, all the time? I wish I were.
-
Permalink Reply by Marybeth D'Amico on
-
News reporting in the digital age seems to mirror the open-source model of the software industry: throw the product out there full of bugs and then people send in their "improvements." There seems to be a greater tolerance for faulty information. Unless everyone is playing by the three credible sources rule, the deck is stacked towards those who prefer speed over accuracy. Just sayin'.
-
Permalink Reply by swt on -
According to the Acme Institute of Accuracy in the Internet, http://tinyurl.com/Internetaccuracyinstitute, 93.7 percent of all information on the Internet is true and trustworthy.
-
Permalink Reply by Brendan McCloud on
-
I think that the main stream media has fallen victim to this. In order to get the story out first they run with news they read on a blog or other source without verifying.
In your case you made the effort to verify. But the truth is you can't trust the media to wait till they verify. The rush to get the scoop is too great.
So I wait until I see confirmation from a number of sources and only after a day or so.
-
Permalink Reply by David Shaw on -
Just this week word got out that Gordon Lightfoot had passed away ... that is until Gordie started phoning radio stations and newspapers denying it ... I saw an e-mail with RIP GORDON LIGHTFOOT in the afternoon and my mood started to plummet until saw the next one in which someone explained that it was a Twitter hoax ... from what I've been able to find out it was more a mistake than a hoax but it shows how things like this can go viral with all the technology surrounding us nowadays. Long live Gordie Lightfoot!
-
Permalink Reply by Will James on -
Second that re: Gord! I think this has been discussed to death. How about a couple rules to start, don't declare someone dead on the net unless he or she is related, and use a friggin' style manual, will ya? Chicago is my fave. What Hunter Thompson did for journalism was great... until the Internet came along (to quote that one woman on that morning show, Who cares?).
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Harkness on -
Kyla,
Very credible explanation but the reality may simply be that you are an incredibly gifted clairvoyant... :)
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2012 Created by No Depression.
Badges | ND Terms Of Use | ND Privacy Policy | Report an Issue | Terms of Service
