The Industry Standard - A lesson for bloggers: go to the source or look like a fool - Comments

If the lesson is to contact

A. M. Marks — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:21:23 -0700

If the lesson is to contact the person you are writing about why didn't anyone contact Mr. Yager and get his side of the story instead of just taking the word of Mr. Ventura?

John: One area in which

Ian Lamont — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:42:37 -0700

John: One area in which bloggers (or, more precisely, some bloggers) often trump mainstream media journalists is expertise. The Dan Rather/Bush National Guard memo fiasco is perhaps the most well-known example, but I see it practically every day in online reactions to media reports -- bloggers and online commenters point out mistakes in articles or questionable coverage decisions. We get this treatment on the Standard, and frankly, it's a great thing. It provides a dialogue, new points of view, and an extra layer of checks on our editorial processes.

Ian Lamont
Managing Editor
The Industry Standard

Oh, and one place to start

john andrews — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:13:39 -0700

Oh, and one place to start is by linking out to those who contribute comments or content to your publication. No-attribution black-hole publishing is lame and unworthy behavior of any journalist. So why do "respectable, fact-checking responsible journalists" do it, while bloggers link out to their supporters?

I was thinking what

john andrews — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:10:47 -0700

I was *thinking* what anonymous said... not because I meant it, but I expected someone to post it as a comment. And he did.

As genuine as you are, bloggers can't be compared to journalists, and especially in a way that suggests quality is a factor. Sort of like arguing that the Supermarket tabloid is not a *real* newspaper, as the New York Times hustles to pay its bills and Google makes millions on ads placed on celebrity news blogs and mashups. Okay so a blog isn't a newspaper... so what? The blog readers like the blogs, newspaper readers are now reading blogs, and what blogger wants to be a failing newspaper or out of touch journalist?

If you assume the blogger seek the same external validation you seek as a journalist, you miss the mark. People who slight bloggers for credibility are to be ignored as the train rolls forward right over them. If they are strong enough to make a good case and expose blogging as well, less repectable, then... well... let's just say mean people suck.

The challenge is not to prove that blogging is second rate compared to real journalism.... the challenge is to be considered a successful respectable journalist in this modern media world.

My guess is the anonymous

Jenny — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:14:32 -0700

My guess is the anonymous bitter guy was one of the bloggers who jumped all over that story!

I'm glad you feel like

Jordan Golson882676 — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:59:52 -0700

I'm glad you feel like you've learned something today, but I don't think I've been at this long enough to be washed-up!

Thanks for the feedback, though. Next time leave your name!

I love getting journalism

anonymous — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:48:51 -0700

I love getting journalism lessons from washed-up hacks. This is awesome. I can't wait to learn more from Professor Pantload Golson.

A lesson for bloggers: go to the source or look like a fool

Jordan Golson — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:33:32 -0700

The Hill, a popular newspaper covering D.C. and Congress, wrote a story claiming iPhones were well on their way to being offered to members of Congress and their staff. However, the piece, entitled "iPhones are a must-have for Congress," was way off target and made many bloggers who sourced it look foolish. It was "simply inaccurate," according to Jeff Ventura, press secretary for the Chief Administrative Officer for the House of Representatives.

Many blogs wrote up the Hill article as fact and never bothered to follow up with Jeff Ventura, the original source for the story. He was happy to talk about the topic, but he told me I was the second reporter to call him about the story. The first was Roll Call -- the other Congressional paper.

The office of the CAO is in charge of the day-to-day communications systems of the House, and is the department in charge of email and cell phones for members. Ventura told me the author of The Hill article, Jordy Yager, had taken his quotes out of context in several places and, worse, had directly misquoted him in others.

In the article, Yager quotes Ventura saying "we heard a lot of people wanted the option to have" iPhones, and that the CAO was testing iPhones to see if they are "compatible with the working needs of lawmakers and staff."

Ventura told me that there had been "some interest from offices inquiring about if we would ever have them", but no outright demands for the phone. While the CAO does have five iPhones on hand, are just "trying them out." Ventura said that "in terms of the beta testing that we've done so far, unless demand is incredible for them, it's probably not something that we'll be offering. We don't see people bemoaning the fact that they have to use the BlackBerry Pearl."

The quotes I got were a far cry from what The Hill had printed -- and I wrote a story saying so. It's not as if Ventura was hard to reach, either. His number is right on the CAO's press page. It took me literally five minutes to find out the story was wrong on several key points.

Blogs, as a general rule, seldom have scoops. Sure, there are a few stories that actually broke in the blogosphere, but most real reporting comes from wire stories and local newspapers. Blogs, at best, just make the story louder. They just re-report -- and re-analyze -- stories from elsewhere.

In my mind this is the main difference between "blogs" and "news sources." Forget the nonsense about posting formats and short posts -- time stamps and comments. None of that matters. The truly innovative sites -- the ones really worth reading -- are those actually breaking stories. There aren't many of them. Most simply regurgitate what other people have already written, with a link and a hat tip.

This is the reason blogs will never replace traditional journalism. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

That's not to say journalists are angels when it comes to fact-checking. Drew Curtis, owner of Fark.com, wrote an entire book slamming lazy journalists -- and pulls no punches about writers who don't do their homework.

"That's my biggest complaint about lazy writers," Curtis told me. "They're so fucking dumb, they never check to see if claims are accurate. They accuse everyone else of 'believing everything they read on the Internet', then don't check sources themselves."

These writers aren't just run-of-the-mill folks that no one reads either. These are factually inaccurate stories run on major blogs or media sites that could easily be corrected with a five-minute phone call. Consider the following examples:

David Chartier at Ars Technica wrote an article titled "Congress considers iPhone" citing The Hill clip as its only source. "The iPhone may soon be a new option for congressional members by the next Congress in January 2009," Chartier wrote. Ventura told me that sort of a timetable was unrealistic and the Hill article got that completely incorrect.

Brian X. Chen wrote on Wired.com's Gadget Lab blog that "House Members Vote for iPhone Adoption", saying members of the U.S. House of Representatives were "demanding iPhones." Ventura told me that a members had inquired if the iPhone would be offered at any point, but "no one was 'demanding' them."

Matt Buchanan, writing for Gizmodo, said that members and staff "have about 8,200 BlackBerrys between them, ... but, for a few of the fancier ones, that's not good enough. They want iPhones." Buchanan noted that the iPhone coming to Congress would be "something of a symbolic blow to RIM" -- too bad it's not happening any time soon.

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes wrote an article for ZDNet.com titled "Congress house members want iPhones!" Wrong.

iPhone Atlas, prominently branded CNet site, wrote "iPhones Staged to Take Over US Congress," and that iPhones were "at the top of the 'must-have' lists for members." Wrong.

The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) wrote "Your congressman wants an iPhone", citing The Hill as saying members could be getting iPhones when they return to DC after the elections. Not happening.

Boing Boing Gadgets got it wrong. So did PCMag.com. And the LA Times, Cult of Mac, and iPod Observer.

One phone call would have set the record straight -- but no one made it, and thus the story perpetuates. It leads me to wonder what other stories are completely wrong but accepted as fact.

Incidentally, I'm not immune to this either. I ran a story without confirmation and got the facts wrong.

Paul Boutin, whom I worked with at Valleywag, repeatedly told me to "pick up the phone" when I was reporting. "You never know what you're going to find out -- what scoop you might get." The blogosphere, and the media in general, would be a lot better if reporters would just heed that advice.

Read what Ventura had to say about iPhones in Congress in the following article:

House official contradicts iPhones report

(Photo by joelogon)