Today's Edwards announcement is an object lesson in how easy it is for us in the blogosphere to run with something juicy without double-checking the facts and/or being very, very careful to precisely word our posts so that we don't tell readers to take something to the bank that hasn't been confirmed.
It's also a lesson in how to promptly and gracefully face the music and admit error.
Earlier today, Politico's Ben Smith ran with a single anonymous source today at shortly past 11:00 a.m. saying that former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) would suspend his presidential campaign so he could tend to his wife, Elizabeth, as she battles breast cancer.
That source turned out to be wrong. Edwards will continue his campaign and Smith promptly admitted and apologized for his error (his blog post was submited at 12:34 EDT, just after the Edwards announcement). [continued...]
Smith did the right thing by openly confessing his error and apologizing. Politico was wise to include a link to Smith's apology and explanation for his error.
On the other hand, I noticed a few blogs that linked to Smith's earlier erroneous news item on the Edwards campaign that have added an "update" but not a "correction" or apology for erroneous reporting in their original posts.
What responsibility do those blogs have to admit error, if any? Does the fact that they were linking to an outside source excuse their role in peddling what turned out to be a faulty story?
Let me know what you think in the comments section.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Anyone who linked to the stor
March 22, 2007 - 16:06 ET byAnyone who linked to the story that was found to be mistaken, should post a retraction for the original link in place of the original link and title it to show that it is a retraction.
Politico did the right thin
March 22, 2007 - 16:07 ET by motherbeltPolitico did the right thing admitting the error. It is an unfortunate mistake, but mistakes happen. The other blogs that added an "update" were less responsible...that makes it seem like Edwards changed his mind, until you read the story.
The error is Mr. Smith's and
March 22, 2007 - 16:07 ET by NoMoreClintonsThe error is Mr. Smith's and his alone, IMO. Those who link to his site have no need to apologize but do need to issue a correction (and a link to Smith's mea culpa).
Most of these bloggers have no experience in the real world of news reporting and hence are not professionals and it shows at times like these. Now, I don't know if Ben Smith has a degree in Journalism or anything else about his background but I know it's common jounalistic practice (at least it was for me in my reporting days) for a reporter to, at the very least, get a second source to confirm what the first one said so that you're not left looking like a fool and ruin your credibility (at least in the short term). The rush to be first at whatever cost is a temping one but not a gamble most professional reporters would be willing to take.
For the most part blogs are
March 22, 2007 - 17:09 ET by mattmFor the most part blogs are self-correcting. Errors are corrected more quickly than in the traditional press because to fail to do so results in instant credibility loss, to the point where the blog becomes a mere daily kos.
This is why alarmism over misinformation from blogs is overblown. It is extremely more likely for misinformation survive and actually thrive in traditional media than in an interactive format like the internet.
This is also where the colleges are failing. Because they have abandoned the "search for truth" in favor of pushing Leftism, they have perpetuated misinformation, rather than advanced knowledge.
I waited and watched the pres
March 22, 2007 - 19:29 ET by kimschI waited and watched the presser (20 minutes later than scheduled) and posted a synopsis as they were talking. I went back into my post with a few more details but that was it. I saw that some people had posts up based on Drudge or Politico and many left it as open and unconfirmed. With all the speculation out there as to what it would be about, I decided to wait and see what John and Elizabeth Edwards actually had to say.
Had I posted early based on Politico and Drudge, I would have posted a correction and linked to the mea culpa as well. Not just an update.
When I checked MSNBC's websit
March 22, 2007 - 20:41 ET by Conservative in the ArtsWhen I checked MSNBC's website around 10 this morning, they had their top story was a picture of edwards walking with big word of "suspended". I thought it was a weird word to use, but makes sence if they were just following the lead of their "sources" seems it just wasn't the blogoshpere that did this.
The very first thought I had
March 23, 2007 - 06:12 ET by fosstenThe very first thought I had when the press conference started was that Edwards' office deliberately leaked the misinformation to draw attention to him so he could give his "fight the good fight" speech. It was the FIRST thought I had.
Am I paranoid, or do I know these people?