Wikidisinformation
The New York Times had a story Sunday about John Seigenthaler Sr., former editor of The Tennessean and, according to his bio on Wikipedia, a suspected conspirator in the killing of not only President John F. Kennedy, but also his brother, Bobby.
That last bit is completely false, of course, but it was written so matter-of-factly that any reader would have assumed it was indeed fact. To say the least, Seigenthaler was not happy. He investigated a bit but, short of a lawsuit, which he didn't want to bother with, the poster's identity will remain secret.
The episode sheds light - again - on the accuracy and very truthfulness of anything one finds online...even from a now-respeceted source such as Wikipedia. The New Yorker cartoon from back in the day is still relevant: "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog." Or if your information is.
So where are newspapers' marketing departments? This is a huge opportunity for news organizations - I can picture banner ads online that read: "Really. What we print is really true. And really accurate."
Before you laugh and bring up Jayson Blair and Judith Miller, remember that the vast, vast majority of information and news produced by real news organizations is truthful and accurate. That can't be said for bloggers and other amateur Websites.
In fact, some university or think-tank could gather some good press by undertaking independent research and put numbers behind the accuracy and truthfulness or professional vs. amateur online information sources. That wouldn't be very hard to do.
Newspapers need to do many things, but they should absolutely be hammering home their most important remaining product advantage - reputation built on accuracy.
That last bit is completely false, of course, but it was written so matter-of-factly that any reader would have assumed it was indeed fact. To say the least, Seigenthaler was not happy. He investigated a bit but, short of a lawsuit, which he didn't want to bother with, the poster's identity will remain secret.
The episode sheds light - again - on the accuracy and very truthfulness of anything one finds online...even from a now-respeceted source such as Wikipedia. The New Yorker cartoon from back in the day is still relevant: "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog." Or if your information is.
So where are newspapers' marketing departments? This is a huge opportunity for news organizations - I can picture banner ads online that read: "Really. What we print is really true. And really accurate."
Before you laugh and bring up Jayson Blair and Judith Miller, remember that the vast, vast majority of information and news produced by real news organizations is truthful and accurate. That can't be said for bloggers and other amateur Websites.
In fact, some university or think-tank could gather some good press by undertaking independent research and put numbers behind the accuracy and truthfulness or professional vs. amateur online information sources. That wouldn't be very hard to do.
Newspapers need to do many things, but they should absolutely be hammering home their most important remaining product advantage - reputation built on accuracy.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home