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.
Any relation to Maureen O'Gara?
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
"First Post"
-Michelle Dellio
Good thing we don't have to worry about Slashdot retracting anything, on account of carrying those stories--it hasn't got any editorial credibility to lose!
Good job, Zonk! Can you post some Roland Pippqupqpqpqpaiillellepzaille today, please?
So will Delio's new job be reporting for the New York Times or a Slashdot editor?
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Why can't we have hottie tech reporters, I say? At least when they go crooked we could cut them some slack because they look good =)
...from hiring people that previously worked for the New York Times.
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?
After everyone finishes watching Revenge of the Sith, go watch Shattered Glass.
Hayden Christiansen does a great job in it, and it's a great movie (and true
story/book too..)
While it would be difficult to check every source for every story, not checking them leads less-than-scrupulous journalists into temptation. Why not have a publication select a number of sources at random and check them? Wouldn't this go a long way towards "keeping honest people honest"?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
In a recent news conference, Michelle Delio stated, "I have no familial relation to Maureen O'Gara, but the similarities are striking."
It seems we just can't trust most of the mainstream media today. It seems that schools that teach journalism skip teaching about integrity, ethics, and the responsibility for reporters to be objective.
I think I'll just stick to Groklaw and forget the rest of the press.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
A first read of the summary makes it look like that Wired is retracting some stories, and correcting others. This is not the case:
"Wired News is not retracting any of these stories."
Seems to me the journo just got a little burned out and put it a little padding rather than made up MOG lies. However, the whole Spyware article was based on unverifiable quotes, which is cause for some concern.
.. not everything you read on the internets is true!
Big Delio
"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
Why fabricate quotes? There's a bunch of slashdotters anxious do quote on pretty much everything... Specially those Anonymous Cowards...
The recent cases of reporters fabricating newstories only highlights how poor the editorial oversight is in the American newspaper industry. Most papers just put their news divisions on auto-pilot and never fact check, let alone spell check anything. I have seen an increase in shoddy writing and poorly attributed quotes since the mid-1980s. Because the larger American public doesn't seem to give a rats-ass, nothing gets done.
This is a hand wringing exercise by the American press. Readership has and will continue to fall off in favor of other news outlets, robbing the public of the detail that is required to make informed political decisions.
Great news for the rabid, camera-mugging politicians.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Sound remnant of Stephen Glass' fabrication of stories..
MABASPLOOM!
Have their fellow reporters MetaModerate the articles. Each day you check the facts of ten randomly selected articles by your fellow reporters. Heck, small independent, free publications could MetaModerate each other.
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
He's going to the Register.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
I read about this earlier, and it should be noted that the quotes she is accused of fabricating were all for "color." The stories themselves and the main people quoted therein are legitimate. So its not a Jayson Blair or MOG type of deal. That being said, it still looks bad, and that's anethema to a news organization.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
When you write such riveting articles with titles like "Read The F***ing Story, Then RTFM" we know that you must be a gem of a freelancer! I wouldn't know for sure though, I couldn't RTFS or the FM. I'm a Slashdotter afterall.
What I found funny about the quotes given by "Carmella" is that they were mirrored on several other sites with the citation leading back to the Wired article.
From this article entitled "Spyware on My Machine? So What?":
I had a good idea what the Marketscore software does, though I didn't read the entire user agreement," said 19-year-old New York University student Keith Caron. "In general when any application asks to install another application, I assume the other application is spyware. But you have to support spyware if you're going to have free file-sharing applications. Fair's fair.
I had a good idea what Delio was doing when she wrote these articles, though I didn't read the entire thing," said 26-year-old Slashdotter Bill Roehl. "In general when any story is posted to the main page, I assume it's full of worthless bullshit that no one cares about. But you have to support Slashdot if you're going to be a Slashbotter. Fair's fair in addiction."
I know that I was asked many times to answer simple questions on campus. I usually would give some valid reply and list a fake name and address. They can have my thoughts but why would I ever give them my personal information.
"Keith" seems like a typical college student from 2004, IMHO, most of them don't give a shit as long as they can get their music free and fast.
If at first you don't succeed, cheat. Repeat until caught, then lie.
A computer makes it possible to do, in half an hour, tasks which were completely unnecessary to do before.
Things seem bleak for traditional journalism right now, but the threat of distributed reporting from blogs, the demise of local newspapers, and this series of scandals could be just the thing to force the profession to rebuild itself in a better image.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Before your knees starts jerking...
If you RTFA, you'll learn that of 700 articles, only about 24 had citation issues, and of those, only FOUR were articles that relied on unconfirmed quotes. The woman didn't cite her sources correctly, that's all this is.
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
In my exclusive interview with Michelle Delio, she explained, "It seemed like a good idea at the time. Making up quotations was a harmless way for me to support my crack habit, and I was getting really tired of working as a hooker. A lot of people think that having sex and getting paid, is a fun life. And it is, for a while. But let me tell you: after a few months of it, it takes its toll. The clients are so demanding... suck this, insert that, no tip if you don't fake a loud one. Fabricating quotations and then writing them up as articles for money, seemed like the perfect career change."
These titles alone sound pretty hoaky:
Spyware on My Machine? - I run several operating systems (Mac OS X, linux, etc.) and I've never heard of this so-called "spyware."
So What? - Bad Title. Out.
Minniapple's Mini Radio Stations - Bad spelling. Right out.
The Masters of Memory Lane - OK the title's legit, but if you read the article, it says "sources: O. Whatshisname"
Shattered Glass 2: What's the Delio?
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?
Because, as we all know, it's GWB's policies that have caused Wired to lower their standards.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
i was interviewed by "wired" a few years ago and the editor called me to confirm the story and all quotes. i guess that wasn't a normal practice for them.
;)
i bet it will be now.
james
"It's lies! Lies I tell you!" said Ms. Delio, shaking her fist at a press conference held the women's rest room at an abandone Gulf Oil station off the New Jersey Turnpike. "Wait... I mean, the claims that I told lies are lies, you see? My words were unvarnished truth! The Walker Art Museum really did transform into a giant Autobot and prance around the area. There were, like BILLIONS of witnesses!"
"She's (sniff) a troubled (sniff) girl," said and shaky, sweaty Rebekah Chemtrayle who is some sort of senior something at Wired that no one is quite able to define. "(Sniff) she has had some traumatic (sniff) experiences (sniff) and some (sniff) childhood demons (sniff) that causes her to (sniff) do really unsound things (sniff) like write false (sniff) stories, wear poly(sniff)ester and vote (sniff) Republican... fuck, I need a fix. How much would youy (sniff) pay me for (sniff) a BBBJ?"
"They won't catch me!" cried Ms. Delio in a phone interview from what she claimed was her Fortress Of Solitude in Flat Rock, Michigan deep beneath the Ford Mustang plant. "I'll unleash my legions of lesbian ninja kittens on tham all, and I, yes *I* shall have the last laugh. Here it goes. Hahahahahahaaa!"
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.
Hey,
Now that the Huffington Post is online, perhaps Hilary Rosen should be joined by over there with Maureen O'Gara, Mary Mapes and Michelle Delio. Or would that lead to the birth of a black hole on the internet?
Perhaps they could branch off to create their own blog "Fem-Hacks", the gender-correct alternative to "Stud-Hacks" of Jeff Gannon/Guckert, Jyason Blair and Dan Rather fame? I think the market potential would be huge!
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
That's more than a story every three days, including weekends, for over 5 years. And that's just for Wired - it doesn't include articles written for other publications!
Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but it seems there should have been the suspicion that someone who can discover, investigate and report on a newsworthy phenomenon every 2.5 days for 5 years straight might be cutting corners somewhere.
I have never bought into the myth that blogging is such a highly accountable medium, but this is precisely the reason why the "MSM" is losing ground to at least new media. How can you take seriously a publication that just makes up quotes? That's borderline illegal behavior.
He should be fired on the spot for this kind of behavior. Summary loss of employment is the only way that a media company like Wired can come out of this clean.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why is it that some kinds of bad journalism, like fabricating quotes, is career suicide, but Bob Novak can leak a CIA agent's identity and collect multiple paychecks?
Why don't the "journalists" who ignore real stories (the Bush/Blair "smoking gun" memo and the "misplaced" $9 billion in Iraq) in favor of sensationalism like runaway brides and missing white children lose their credibility?
There's a lot more wrong with the state of journalism in the U.S. than fictional quotes. Roger Ailes meeting with the Whitehouse to "shape" press coverage for example.
-dameron
the name is an anagram of " Im code Lie Hell" fitting dont you think
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
You have a talent, sire. I suggest a career in journalism
eat shiat and bark at the moon
... it's not so much that editors don't fact-check, but that those quoted don't get the chance to fact-check. I've been interviewed a number of times, but I've never gotten to see the final text before publication. 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.
Bruce
Odds are, anyone who carried such a function was long since laid off in the industry to maximise profits. Let readers letters tell the editors who is off base, etc. Heck, they write in for free!
I had a friend, ages ago, who was going into reporting. I pointed out she had some minor little factual error in one of her published stories. She said, she didn't really fscking care. Seems to be a lot of that going around lately and not just because the Whitehouse is handing out envelopes of cash. Maybe it's the job, too much expected in too little time. What does bother me is when a reporter has your number, and rather than call up to clarify some item, they just make up something and move on. Probably what Delios did.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I've had a strange experience with Wired. They wrote a piece on me once (I won't go into detail) and interviewed me (ironically the interviewer was a friend) at length.
Two weeks later then they called me to verify facts which I thought was very professional.
Then when the article was released I was a bit shocked. The article painted me in a VERY bad light and even misquoted me.
I confronted my friend about this and she said her editor changed the article after she wrote it. I'm sure Wired did this to make it sell more magazines.
Either way I was hurt professsionally and have considered a lawsuit on the subject.
The article was obviously NOT written in good faith and and all of my quotes (some of which were incorrect) were taken out of context to make me sound bad.
They also wouldn't let me review the article and also made me sign an agreement saying that I would agree that the article was acceptable ahead of time.
Very fishy and not very professional.
I any of you are ever contacted by Wired to do a story I'd either turn them down flat or require approval. Its just not worth risking your profession over...
A.C.
n'th rule of interviews: Record everything you say to a reporter! Some states allow you to record without informing the reporter. To be on the safe side, if you don't know the laws of your state, ask the reporter if it's OK. If (s)he says "no", why the smeg are you still giving an interview?
(I thought of this myself, but I have later found it verified in information pamphlets on dealing with the media.)
n+1'th rule: Everything is on the record. Even if the camera appears to be turned off, the tally (the red blinking light) isn't on or whatever.
My own rule: Bloggers are your best friend if a journalist c**** on you. "Crockumentary" filmmaking and reporting, while still financially viable, isn't as damaging to the "public record" as it used to be. The people who want to believe the a**-journalist will still do it, but other people will know better.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
Do you remember every comment you made to anyone 5 years ago? This could be a get out of jail free card for a lucky few!
A positive quote about SCO in 2000? I don't know what you are talking about! RETRACT IT!
"I'm a poopy-head"
-- Michelle Delio, 10 May 2005
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
History repeats itself. I can't remember if the movie was based on a true story or not but I believe it was.
Shattered Glass
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Wasnt "Fact Checker" a real job title in the newspaper once upon a time? A person whose sole job in life is to verify facts to make certain the paper didnt embarass itself? Not that it matters in this day and age when getting there first is more important than getting it right. Thanks CNN.
It would also be nice that when you've got a confirmation that person X will provide a quote, that they will actually do so. ( Come on, people, it takes all of 5 minutes.. if you can't come up with a quote in 5 minutes, then maybe you shouldn't have agreed to providing one )
:)
Rather than having to e-mail and call and just get "oh yeah.. will do that later" and end up having to pull a rather common thing when it comes to quotes:
Making up your own quote, sending that to Person X just for their approval, and using that.
Yep, that's right, they never said what was written, but they agree with it, so hey.
I wonder how much of the reporter's apparently 'unfounded' quotes may have been of this particular type
Just my 2cts
Could have sworn I watched a movie this morning about the same damn thing. 'cept the dude worked for The New Republic, but the stories had the same clever play-on-words kinda names.
http://www.watacrackaz.com
"Delio's in the shit" - anattributed quote.
Jonathanjk.com
Or, they could have just created Wired: the Blog, and move all her stories there. Problem solved!
shameless semi-related plug
You probably shouldn't click this.
I almost became the source of misquotes.
I got a call one night from a local TV station asking if I would mind asking some questions. Sure, might as well have my opinion count in some poll. So they proceed to ask questions about politics in Serbia. I was pretty proud I could give informed answers. But towards the end, when I prefaced an answer with "Well, I'm not an expert, but.." the woman said, "Wait, aren't you _____ the international relations expert?" I said "No, I'm _____ the engineer." Turns out I was being mistakenly interviewed because the real expert and I had the same name.
I still think I had good answers.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
I think it's unfair to condemn the entire American media for this.
Journalism is no different than other professions. Most people care about their craft. Some don't. And the ones that don't are the ones that do the most damage.
We in the media always hear about how we never report on all the airplanes landing safely, right? Well, does the public praise us for all the stories that were reported correctly? Of course not. It's our job to get things right.
Don't get me wrong. There is plenty wrong with journalism today (big egos and political agendas are at the top) but most reporters I know got into this business for the same reason I did: passion for the job.
Most of us care and respect our work.
Maybe sloppiness, carelessness, cluelessness...
What struck me though, was the possibility that this is a deliberate tactic to avoid you telling them in advance that you disagree with the story and make corrections that run contrary to their story. It's both a way to avoid a nuicance, AND shield themselves from a lawsuit for libel, maybe.
If you have time and sanity to re-visit the CBS memos, I'd recommend this blog post on contrary information: Sneak Peek at What's Not in the Memogate Report, although it's more about avoiding contacting you in the first place, than checking quotes. What might be relevant though, is the tactic of giving you minimal input to a news story.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
I always enjoy seeing our democracy in action.
Remember that there are places on this earth where people are killed or imprisoned when they find out that news are tampered with and try to publish their findings.
... 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....
We spoke at length, and he/she told me, "I am very sorry for any harm that i may have caused by completely making up a quote and attempting to pass it off as real. had I known what would happen, i would have tried to hide it better".
There you have it, from the horses mouth, I swear.
Really.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Please tell me why not being able to substantiate non-fact-related parts of a story is a big deal? Moreover, if it is such a small number of stories, then why is it -so- bad?
I hardly believe she is the first to do this.
So what's going on with the parties in the story that is not being addressed?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
for a FOX news reporter.
In other news, The Washington Times has put out a wanted add for a tech news reporter.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
It's equally possible that the reporter in question is just lazy about notetaking or maintaining contact information.
Or its possible that, when going through a list of 700 contacts (if there's only one/story) compiled over 5 years, that 24 people moved or changed a phone number or otherwise couldn't be contacted.
I'm really at a loss as to how this is even newsworthy.
Actually, if you read Penenberg's report, he only looked at a sample of 160 of Delio's articles. Of those, 24 had sources Penenberg's team could not confirm. I don't know where you get your four number.
I was the editor of the "Enterprise Blogs and Wikis" story for InfoWorld that Penenberg talks about in his report and I can confirm that Ms. Delio similarly did not respond to requests that she identify the partial sources she cited in that article. Other editors at InfoWorld followed up on sources in other stories independently and were unable to confirm those sources.
Tempest in a teapot? Maybe. To tell the truth, if there were fabricated quotes in the articles Ms. Delio wrote for me, I really don't think they did a whole lot of damage to the stories themselves. Barring the unconfirmed sources I mentioned, I do believe that her articles were meant to be factual stories written in good faith. That's why InfoWorld, like Wired, has not actually retracted any of Ms. Delio's stories; in some cases we have excised certain portions of those stories from the online versions, but all of the stories are still available (though it's only about four stories total for us, if I remember right).
That's kind of the shame of this whole thing, too. It doesn't give me any joy to see Ms. Delio dragged out in front of the court of public opinion for what may have been nothing more than a pattern of very poor judgment. But anytime a writer may have fabricated something in an otherwise ostensibly factual story, that's the kind of tempest in a teapot you want your media sources to jump all over. You just can't let it slide.
InfoWorld won't be able to use Ms. Delio's services anymore, but for myself I wish her the best of luck and hope she can move on from this episode in a way that is satisfying for her both personally and professionally. (Note that these statements are my own and do not represent the official opinion of InfoWorld magazine or its parent company, IDG.)
Breakfast served all day!
What is worrying, following on to your comment, is that the "Columbia Journalism Review", affiliated with the Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, is one of the places where I've witnessed rather shoddy reporting. (I haven't conducted a study. Just personal experience.)
I agree with both of you to a certain extent. I think "most" of the main stream media can be trusted, on the pedestrian news stories, but they have a problem with the controversial ones. But I also think that the public have a right to expect journalists, when not opining, to strive toward being unbiased and getting the facts straight.
Saying "Oh, but everybody is biased" and then turning into Maureen O'Gara, isn't going to fly in my airspace.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
Book: Hard News : The Scandals at The New York Times and Their Meaning for American Media, by Seth Mnookin
Beyond the obvious fraud commited by Jayson Blair, Mnookin delves into what was wrong in the NYT newsroom and managerial organization that allowed Blair to get away with it. In short: an imperious Howell Raines alienated his subordinate editors and the communications process broken down, allowing a "charismatic crook" to slip past the checks and balances that normally would catch him.
Movie: Shattered Glass, starring *cough* Hayden Christensen ...
At the New Republic, Stephen Glass was able to subvert their fact checking process -- starting with occasionally making up quotes, he ended up fabricating entire stories out of whole cloth. The Forbes Digital investigation that finally brought him down will likely be interesting to readers here
I'm purposely not reading the comments on this thread, because the naivety exhibited will certainly make my head spin, and I need to get back to work. In short, just like the typical Slashdot reader knows a hell of a lot more about the subtleties of IT than a journalist, the journalism professional knows a hell of a lot more about the subtleties of journalism ethics than 99% of Slashdot readers.
And above all, spend a little time reading "hard" journalism once in while (even online versions of the old media, like NYT, WP, etc.) and get a feel for what rigorous journalism looks like. Blogs have their own set of problems that you may be blind to if you never read "real" reporting ...
One simple rule for its versus it's
Who would have ever thought..
Its all a sham.. There is no trustworthy news service, other then your own 2 eyes.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The title of this story, Wired Amends Stories With Fabricated Quotes, is disingenuous at best. I could find no statement anywhere that the quotes in these articles were indeed fabricated. They simply state that the sources could not be confirmed, because they are anonymous. Now, if you decide you want to read between the lines and treat "unconfirmed" as "fabricated", that's certainly your right. But to put such a statement into a story headline only adds to slashdot's reputation as inflammatory and of questionable accuracy and motive.
Perhaps we need to see a headline on some other "news" site entitled "Slashdot Headline About Unconfirmable Quotes Cannot Be Confirmed".
He, he. It does parse that way too doesn't it?
Wired Amends (Stories With Fabricated Quotes)
Wired Amends Stories (With Fabricated Quotes)
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
1. Groklaw covers the SCO lawsuit from a legal perspective, and according to unbiased sources, better than anyone else.
2. The editor of Groklaw (PJ) is definitely pro-FOSS and anti-SCO and says so frequently on the site. This does not stop Groklaw from publishing the source documents on which their opinions are based so you can think and evaluate for yourself. There is a clear demarcation between editorial content and content that is presented as fact.
3. Groklaw has a 'corrections go here' link after every story.
When I was working for Screamingmedia in Chelsea, NY, in 1999, I was considered to be a little nuts because I had the company logo tattooed on my left arm. The TRUE story of how that came about was that one of the marketing people had said in a company-wide meeting that they were going to give 1500.00 to the first person to get a logo tattoo. Being a good sport, I got one, and was told that they were "only kidding". I later found out that the offer didn't really apply to *everybody*, but rather just one of the people close to the founders, who had decided NOT to get a tattoo after all.
I'm kind of laid back, so I didn't start any trouble, but later on I *did* turn the tattoo into a very attractive "Dragon crossing Japanese Sun" kinda thing -- you can't see any logo in there at all now. So no harm done.
One day, Wired sent someone around to interview everyone, focusing mostly on the fact that the company head was Jay Chiat, who was fairly famous at the time. I guess Wired didn't like Mr. Chiat, because their story about us wasn't particularly kind (we really didn't deserve that, either). Regardless, what annoyed me was, I spent a few minutes talking to the idiot they sent around to interview us about why I got the tattoo, and etc.
So, what did said idiot put in the magazine? I don't remember the exact words the idiot used, but the idiot totally made up my quote. The idiot made me look like a fucking MORON -- the idiot had me talking like some kind of dippy stoner.
The idiot! The idiot! The idiot!
I was pissed off for weeks.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
If you RTFA you see that:
"Penenberg and his staff of graduate students at New York University reviewed 160 articles"
"Penenberg provided Wired News with a list of 24 stories that contained sources he could not confirm"
"The unconfirmed sources affect the content of these stories to varying degrees. For example, the Florida network tax story contains only one quote from a source Penenberg could not confirm, but the quote does not materially affect the rest of the story."
"However, there are four articles in which unconfirmed sources arguably play a more prominent role."
Given that a certain percentage of people are going to lie about their name, I wouldn't be surprised to see these numbers as typical for jounalists everywhere. Could she have done a better job? Probably, but it's not like this story is making it out to be.
Sigs are awesome huh?
From my reading of TFA, Wired has retracted stories where sources could not be verified, not where they were shown to be fabricated. No source was shown to be fabricated. There's a big difference: the first is readily attributable to sloppy journalism; the second is certainly fraud. Or perhaps we've forgotten about the the legal theories of reasonable doubt and innocent until proven guilty?
The Slashdot editors should be castigated for using such inflammatory headlines as doing so is in itself is evidence of sloppy journalism on their part.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
FoxNews does this all the time.
See here for an example.
You don't need to rub libstick on a herring. Just feed it the lipstick. Lipstick already has herring in it. They put herring fish scales in lipstick to give it sparkle.
So every time you kiss your girlfriend, you're essentially kissing a fish.
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
What Fox does is much worse, making up clearly false quotes.
"Believe half of what you hear and even less of what you read" Anonymous
Hmmm ... maybe I should file a software patent on this method of journalism. Blast my pesky conscience! It's turning out to be such a handicap in the 21st century.
Anonymous Kev
Proudly posting as AC since 1997
(Finally got a dang account in 2004)
Today, on Slashdot.org, Michelle Delio was reported to have said, "Hey, screw you, you marauding horde of rumor mongering socialist geeks!"
...or maybe I made that up.
It's on now, girl!
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
"We know that a guy said that he talked to a guy who talked to a guy who said that this guy might do something bad on today," said a U.S. official who did not want to be identified.
Straight quote from Reuters or AP (link from yahoo news page), I think I read this couple months after 9/11. It was concerning about high terrorist alert the US government put on for a day, but I can't believe they put this kinda of quote as news - zero content, zero credibility.
From Wired News Staff pages:
[quote]
Michelle Delio, Correspondent
Michelle Delio has covered hacking and computer security, privacy, the internet and evolving technology for the past 12 years. Before becoming utterly obsessed with the things she can do with and to technology, she was the editor of Outlaw Biker magazine for three years, and for a decade prior was a professional palm and tarot card reader. She figures fast bikes and fortune telling were the perfect preparation for life as a tech reporter. As Arthur C. Clarke said: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and, as Arthur C. Clarke didn't say, when you're online no one knows if you're an outlaw. Delio has been online since 1983 and so considers herself a cyber-crone at the ripe old age of 36. She lives and works in New York City.
[/quote]
"as Arthur C. Clarke didn't say..."
Not just Arthur C. Clarke it seems!
There is no safe seat at the feast
Take your best stab at the beast.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
If a reporter knows she can go out on the street, talk to people for a half hour and come back with a quote of "I don't believe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction." what then, is the difference if she just writes down "I don't believe Iraq...."?
In my example the reporter would;
A. Know enough about the subject to have no doubt some person would say the quote.
B. Already have a "slant" for the story.
Although I don't believe in, or watch, this type of news, what is the difference?
Depends on what you call 'online'. BBSes with a 300baud modem- I don't think that's a stretch.
Access to THE Internet? No.
It's BareBacked Blow Job (i.e., no condom).
1 .html
Also seen is BBBJTC (Barebacked Blow Job To Completion).
http://www.encyclopedia-of-sex.com/printarticle43
My other first post is car post.
From her Wired staff bio:
"She was the editor of Outlaw Biker magazine for three years, and for a decade prior was a professional palm and tarot card reader."
When someones work history includes a career at which bullshitting is not only helpful, but required, you would do well to keep a skeptical eye on their current productions.
Some years ago, family friends agreed to be interviewed by the local paper for an article about homeschooling. This was back in the day when homeschooling wasn't all that common, so they figured it wouldn't hurt to do an interview to inform the public about it. They do the interview, the reporter comes and takes pictures of the family doing school work, it all seems good, until they get up one Sunday morning, open the paper and see the frontpage headline: "Homeschooling: Is it legal?" with their photograph directly below. Lets just say that they haven't trusted reporters since.
I've had experiences with reporters trying to put words in my mouth, some more harmless than others. The harmless experience would be when I got interviewed before Game 1 of the Stanley Cup finals and the reporter kept trying to get me to say it was a once in a lifetime experience (which I'm not going to say, because I hope to see them hoist the Cup many times in my lifetime--needless to say, I wasn't quoted in the story). On another occasion, I was about 13 at the time, I was doing a bit of actvism of the sort that I was soon to be arrested for, and it happened to be a very hot day. A reporter from the Orlando Slantinel wanted to get a quote from me about being hot, probably because the story line in all of the papers the next day was that it was child abuse for parents to let their kids be out in the hot Florida sun (nevermind that we teens were the ones who planned the protest, not that the reporters ever bothered to find that out). The reporter came over to me and said something like "whew, it's hot, aren't you burning up?" It wasn't until I thought about it a bit later that I realized that she had been fishing for a quote, I'm just glad that I wasn't particularly hot and she didn't get the quote she wanted. It was pretty clear though that the story had already been written and she just needed convienent quotes to fill in the blank.
Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
This whole non-story actually says more about the culture of pseudo-accountability in the US than anything else. A report from a journalism professor says that he couldn't verify sources for a tiny fraction of stories. Not that the stories were falsified, but that verification wasn't possible. If you actually look at some of those stories - for example, the 419 scam story - it's hardly surprising that easy verification wasn't possible. Somehow this has got translated into "she made it up". And *that* story has now taken on a life of its own, immune to reality checks of any sort. Almost nobody seems to be asking basic questions. Like: are the standards of accountability that are being demanded here reasonable? Why, if this is a reporter given to falsification, has this never been an issue before? Is there any basis at all, if we adopt the rules that are implicitly required here, to trust any reporter, ever? Does the faculty of *judgement* still count for anything? The domain of truth, in the US, is soundbites and gossip. Accountability and auditability are the capacity to navigate that space.
Back in 2002, Wired (the print version) decided to review one of my freeware apps. I was contacted by two different people. One was a Wired graphics person, who wanted screenshots that I - being a coder, not a graphics monkey - was unfortunately unable to provide in whatever format they wanted, so a picture of my app didn't appear in the mag. Second was someone from Conde Nast who sent a form letter saying, in a nutshell, "We're reviewing your stuff. It'll be in issue 10.7. Wanted to let you know. Thanks."
I actually had an exchange with the graphics chick, because I really wanted to give her the screenshots she was looking for. Language barrier between gfxchic and coderdude screwed things up, she couldn't describe in terms I could figure out how to take the shot that she wanted. I wound up writing her a release saying that if I can't do it, she's more than welcome to; the review went to press with no images. (At which point I started wondering, why is the graphics person asking me to provide a screenshot? Can't she just download the damn app and take her own shots? But I digress.)
Anyway, all of this was over a one paragraph software review. A nothing story and they were begging for my help. Most places would just have reviewed it without contacting me.
I don't fault Wired, per se, for Ms. Delio's journalistic transgressions. Jayson Blair was able to defraud the freaking NYT for awhile; Wired rather pales in comparison. I consider Wired to be more the victim than the perp here.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
Man, it's a cold day on Slashdot when a Python quote get's an offtopic. Loosen up that bowtie, Poindexter.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Kind of scary - I used some of her material in my high school senior thesis and a paper I wrote in college about women in the tech field. Obviously I don't care now, but it illustrates the repercussions from this kind of thing.