I’d like to thank Ed Bott for documenting this timeline of how the tech blogosphere failed to substantiate a story before attempting to earn revenue off it.
The habit needs to change.
I’ll take the unsubstantiated blog stories over the “fair” or false objectivity of old media any day.
BTW, I do prefer the kind of continually updating (and correcting) nature of those that mix both old techniques and new – like arstechnica.com. Very good blend of both styles – early reporting, and substantiated fact, if only later. Oh, they also draw a conclusion when there’s one to draw, which can’t be said for much of old media.
Unfortunately I don’t see this changing as incorrect stories with sensational headlines continue to generate great ad revenue for these blogs. Bad behaviour gets rewarded again and again with little punishment for mistakes.
Unfortunately, the general tech audience gets the headlines and misses the corrections. I’m still hearing and having to correct people about Sliverlight on the iPhone and I imagine I will for the next year or so.
Also, Kevin I wouldn’t use arstechnica.com as a great example. I still see people quoting their bad Flash Player 10 benchmarks article, despite comments early on from people pointing out how their methology was completely flawed in measurements in CPU between Macs & PCs, invalidating their conclusions. Unfortunately, too many tech blogs ignore corrections coming from commenters, only updating when something new comes from other sources.
While ranting on this subject, articles often say “company X had no comment on this subject” without making any effort to reach said company. It’s especially annoying in the web industry, when there’s often many people from any company online for easy access for comments (minus companies like Apple who are very secretive).
Copyright © 2014 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All rights reserved.