Slashdot Mirror
Wired Amends Stories With Fabricated Quotes
SiliconEntity writes "Wired Online has been forced to correct dozens of stories in the wake of disclosures that reporter Michelle Delio may have fabricated quotes. Wired has published over 700 stories by Delio since 2000, and in a review of 160 of the most recent ones, 24 were found to have quotes that could not be confirmed. Several of the Wired stories being questioned were discussed on Slashdot, including Spyware on My Machine? So What?, Minniapple's Mini Radio Stations, The Masters of Memory Lane, and probably many more. Wired is not the only one to get burned; MIT Technology Review and InfoWorld have also had to retract or alter stories written by Delio." Update: 05/10 19:20 GMT by Z : Altered to clarify Wired's actions.
suprising? not really. i can recall a time when movie posters had the same thing going on - I complement Wired on retracting said articles; its a good move.
How do they know who is quoted? a writer is responsible, not the magazine.
And are you all really suprised a writer lied in the first place?
"I swear I am not making this up" -- Dave Barry
Personally, I don't talk to reporters anymore. For years I have been disgusted by "fill-in-the-blanks-with-whatever-sounds-good" journalists.
As a teenager I was featured in the local town paper with my father's OSI (that's Ohio Scientific) computer, which I was learning to program in the mid 70's. I was aghast to read the article, with my face prominently displayed above it at the dining room table near the computer, filled in with all sorts of wild claims. Seemed to me that reality wasn't exciting enough for the reporter so she threw in some crap about my teenage brother writing for Scientific American (she screwed up the name Ohio Scientific, which my brother had written a program for.)
Year's later I'd be misquoted, embarrassingly so, during the outsourcing of my department. A decidedly pro-labor, and damn whatever he said, article put words in my mouth and I'll never forgive that paper for that. The next time they called I hung up. I don't talk to reporters anymore.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
for some time, as well as having had multiple contacts with the journalist (and many others in the scene) in question, I can say that beyond the measure of any doubt, she has done *nothing* that every. single. other. journalist. at. one. time. or. another. has. done.
I'm not saying that most journalists are unethical. I'm saying that most (certainly who have ever written for Wired) have piles of unconfirmable sources which they happily quote. These are "person on the street" sources, and they're more common in tech journalism than toejam on unix geek feet.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've been interviewed for a Wired Story, and the interviewers/Writers editor called us up to fact check, and quote check. I wonder why this didn't happen here?
Strange...
Ted Tschopp
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
Now I know that Groklaw is considered a Good Guy(tm) here at Slashdot (and I am therefore risking my karma), but what makes you think that Groklaw is any more trustworthy than the "mainstream media"?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Most "news" sources are grossly inaccurate; either as a result of the reporter not being familiar with the subject, personal bias slanting the report or investigation, or the simple fact that "boring" news doesn't sell. Why should Wired and the host of other publications which he appeared in have to retract anything? By doing this, are they not implying that all their other stories are accurate? Maybe someone (preferably John Stossel) should do a piece on inaccurate reporting in general, where reporters are "baited" into publishing patently false stories. Then, more and more Americans would start taking the "news" with a grain of salt. Better yet, news channels would replace sitcoms. I wish there were more Alen Abels in this world... http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv.ms t3k.misc/browse_thread/thread/97db6fd9d033ff86/4d2 5aa51bcbaa607?q=hoax+newspaper+abel&rnum=1&hl=en#4 d25aa51bcbaa607
Who wants to bet this has been going on for decades, and that modern networks and communications tech is just making it easier to find the fakes?
I found this out while pursuing my engineering degree.
I could talk about how after we got our take home tests which we were explicitly instructed to complete individually, a group of students went immediately to the library to do them together.
But I suppose I'll just go with how the professor of our Engineering Ethics class encouraged everyone to lie on their resume. That was pretty much when I woke up, and realized what a stupid little kid I was, and how the real world really was just like high school, only bigger.
Because Groklaw corrects errors and values facts over sensationalism, for starters.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
"When I was interviewed by Wired (published May 2003, page 43; it's not worth looking up though, trust me), an editor contacted me for follow-up a few days after the freelancer who wrote the article to double-check that I was who I said I was and that I said the things that they were going to publish. Maybe they've become more lax in the two years since then, or maybe this reported falsified the contact information for the sources."
That's pretty interesting, but there's a subtle difference between wired magazine (dead tree) and wired news (online).
I mean besides the obvious. The online news, I imagine, has a faster turnaround time and less time for the type of process/verification you went through... not that should excuse anyone, i'm ust saying wired magazine != wired news.
*shrug* now where's my stack of old wired?
e.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
... Leander Kahney (of 'Cult of Mac' book fame) received much heat in February over his "Hide Your iPod; Here Comes Bill" story for Wired describing Micro$oft employees being admonished for using iPods at work. I think /. might have even linked that story. Well, it later turned out (according to other journalists and MS employees) that many of his quotes and sources were possibly somewhat nonsensical and not representative of the entire M$ campus culture.
Now, I, being a big fan of Leander, have noticed that it's been nearly two months since a posting has appeared on his once daily blog, and he hasn't published a story for Wired in nearly three months either.
So it looks like Wired might be doing a lot of house cleaning lately....
The two companies have virtually nothing to do with each other.
Ya I've tried this before. Here's what you get back. "I sound stupid when I say 'the box,' change it to 'the PolyTac(TM) product holding cube surrounding the product.' Also, I'm having second thoughts about calling my competitor's product 'asinine,' change it to 'challenging' -- never know when I might need to apply for a job there."
Notice the lack of "please." Once you show someone a quote, they ASSUME they have total control over how it will appear, facts be dammned. And if you don't change the quote the way they want, they are in a stronger position to sue you, becuase showing them the quote for approval in the first place arguably implies you doubt whether it was accurate to begin with.
--A reporter
I think reporting would be much better if, once stories were written, those mentioned/quoted in the story had a chance to review what the article says and offer feedback to the reporter and editor. This could clear up a lot of misunderstandings and misquotes that neither party intended.
I have to agree, and I'll go one further in saying that any kind of interview with the exception of a live broadcast (where, if there is any editing, it's just to add bleeps when someone swears) should go through the same procedure. Case in point: I edited a video interview a while back in which an interviewee, who was nervous in front of the camera, mis-spoke a few of his facts. Not being an expert on the subject matter, I didn't catch the mistake, nor did anyone else at the office. But when I made the rough draft available for the client and the interviewee to approve, the interviewee caught the mistake and kept us all from looking like idiots. It took all of maybe a half an hour to edit out the incorrect fact before mastering.
Even (falsely) assuming that everyone is honest and wouldn't make stuff up to make it sound like they know what they're talking about, everyone makes honest, silly mistakes. But if you publish those mistakes, then both you and the publisher look like idiots, or worse, like you're bullshitting.