There is nothing difficult about attribution. It's simply saying who or what your source is, whether it's a fact, an opinion or a quote. As we've discussed in class, attribution is the soul of journalism because without it, your article or broadcast is not believable. Reporters need to protect themselves. In the event that the information proves to be false, at least the reporter can truthfully say that her source was wrong, not her. And attribution establishes credibility by showing readers or listeners where they can go if they challenge anything in the article or if they want to obtain more information from your sources.
Getting the story first is nice. Getting it fast is nice too. But getting it right supercedes everything else. Without journalistic integrity, reporters or publications have nothing to offer readers or listeners. Recently an Irish college student conducted a media experiment that, unfortunately, major news organizations failed. The results were alarming and should make everyone -- especially aspiring journalists -- remember to not only attribute their own facts, but to check and re-check any unattributed information they obtain online. Click here to read an article about the hoax.
I think that the fake quote was a great idea by Shane. It really does show important attribution is in the journalism world. I also find it funny how only one of the many newspapers and blog obituaries that owned up to the mistake. It seems like some news publications were caught in the act.
ReplyDeleteThis incident should be an eye-opener for journalists and readers alike. A site like Wikipedia is open to be read and edited by the public, meaning a lot of the information may be false or biased. The journalists should have been aware of that when they printed a quote that was supposedly spoken by this late composer. I also feel that if they didi not sdo so they should have given Wikipedia credit. It seems as if many journalists today are relying too much on technology, and sometimes this is the result.The bottom line is that these writers should have been more accurate in their writing. They should have looked further into this quote to see if it could be found anywhere else. This incident should be a wakeup call for those in the industry.
ReplyDeleteI think that Shane's idea to put the fake quote on wikipedia was a very good one. He not only proved how attribution has lost it's importance but also how journalists these days are not quick to check their sources more than once. I think is point was very well proven in what The Guardian paper did. I think that a lot of journalists across the globe heard of this and thought about if they properly attribute a piece or even double check their sources. This "wake up call" was as shown very needed and maybe it will help remind journalists that if they want anyone to read their pieces they must first off be accurate.
ReplyDeleteI believe this was a wake-up call for the journalism world. It shows just how important attribution to a story is. Many journalists cannot always balance both accuracy and quickness, which can always lead to a problem. The most important part of journalism is the accuracy of the facts in the story. Some journalists overlook this important rule, and do not always thoroughly check their sources. it is very well-known that Wikipedia is not always a reliable website. Many schools and colleges do not allow their students to credit Wikipedia for research papers because the information found on the website may not always be true. If schools are very admant about the use of Wikipedia in research papers, then there should be no reason why journalists should double check information they get off of Wikipedia. This incident is an example of journalists getting caught up in getting out a story first, rather than making sure their story is accurate. There is no penalty when you don't get out a story first, but still have the correct facts in your story. However, it becomes a major issue when journalists do not have accurate information. So, this incident proved to be a very important lesson to all journalists.
ReplyDeleteI think what Shane did was clever and brilliant in a sense. He not only taught journalists a lesson, but all of us as well. Wikipedia cannot be trusted because it is accessible by anyone, which is why we aren't allowed to use it for school papers and other assignments. I think Mr. Pogatchnik makes a valid point when he started this experiment because months went by and no one told the journalists who copy and pasted the quote from Wikipedia that the quote was falsified. I'm disappointed in the "professional" journalists for taking part in this, but I'm amazed with Shane Pogatchnik and his idea of journalists believing Wikipedia. This article really shows that attribution and double-checking facts is extremely important in journalism.
ReplyDeleteI think that Shane's experiment was very clever. I knew that not all reporters double checked their sources but I was amazed at how many journalists fell for Shane's hoax. I couldn't believe that professional newspaper reporters took a quote from Wikipedia and printed it without checking with another source. It made those newspapers look ignorant and sloppy. I believe that those reporters learned how important attribution and fact-checking are to journalism.
ReplyDeleteAlthough what Shane did may be considered a clever test of the system I still can't get past how this incident has insulted the memory of a deceased musician. It is interesting to see how a prominent news source, such as the Guardian, actually took information from a Wiki site to use in an article, and how lazy journalists must be getting. Reading through the article made me think how the journalist who stole the fake quote must have just "googled" the name of the obituary he was writing and clicked on the first result to get all his information. I think the internet may be a huge downfall when it comes to using it for resource because you can never trust online ANYTHING.
ReplyDeleteThe experiment conducted by Shane surprised me and let me know that false crediting really does happen. All through out grade school i can remember my english teachers telling the class, "site your sources." Now i finally undefrstand what they mean when false information gets mainstreamed into the media. i think it was important that Fitsgerald posted the fabricated quote. It was a wake up call to the readers as well to the journalists. I also think that the journalists should have known not to take a direct source from wikipedia, because it is known not being 100% accurate. Im glad i read this article because, it let me as a reader know NOT to believer everyting you read!
ReplyDeleteI think this experiment was a good idea and really worked in the situation. It enforces the idea that reporters and journalists need to check their sources, usually more than once. It also goes to show that you shouldn't believe everything you read on the Internet, especially Wikipedia because anybody can contriute to the site. Finally, this article really relates to the movie that we are watching, Shattered Glass. It gives the idea that any article could be fabricated or have false information.
ReplyDeleteI think the fake quote that Shane Fitzgerald posted on Wikipedia was brilliant. He really showed journalists how careful they need to be. With all of the new internet sources we have today, journalists need to be TWICE as careful, because anyone can post garbage online. I'm shocked that journalists are so lazy and sloppy that they would simply copy and paste a quote from Wikipedia. As high school students, and even in middle school, we were always told that Wikipedia was not considered a credible source to help write a research paper, let alone write a newspaper! This experiment showed journalists that attributions and re-checking facts can help weed out the nonsense that can be posted online.
ReplyDeleteThe results of Fitzgerald's experiment were shocking. In school, it is always lectured that students should never use Wikipedia as a source for papers. It's appalling that major news organizations would even use Wikipedia, nevertheless not even validate the information that they find on a website that is notorious for inaccuracies. News organizations pride themselves on their reputation, and using websites like Wikipedia for their sources is an easy way to ruin it.
ReplyDeleteMany people including myself use Wikipedia. We know regular people can upload a page but that does not stop us from believing everything on the website and using it in research reports and homework assignments. It is on the internet and so we say it is true, we believe it to be a legitimate piece of information. The hoax Shane performed was very wise. I also think the conclusion is not surprising but the numbers of it are. The fact that so many people began to use the quote on their blogs was far more than I would expect it to be. I know many people believe things just because it is on the internet even though time and time again we are told not to believe everything just because it is in print. It is sad that people were still using the quote in some cases, even though Shane came out and said he made it up. The quote was very well written and actually very touching. When something seems harmless and just appears to be well written and right, we automatically assume it's ok and we believe it or take it to be credible. This is not the case and Shane has told us this. His experiment is just a very important reason why journalists need to check their sources and information because some journalists and used his quote. The people who read what those journalists wrote were mislead and without Shane telling us that the quote was fake, they would never of known that it was made up. If this quote was information on a hard news story, millions of people would be mislead because a journalists did not check his sources.
ReplyDeleteI believe Shane's idea was good because it proved that some people automatically add something without checking it first. Shane said that he did to see how many people used the quote, and it is sad that some people don't take the time to find the quote again to check its accuracy. It is the job of a journalist to be accurate, and journalists that used the quote without checking it should have.
ReplyDeleteShane's experiment was a great idea! This really showed how many things can be proven to be fake and many people believe it. I think that today, everyone is way to dependent on false information sites and sources such as Wikipedia. Journalists must learn how to attribute a source and what the source had said. Journalists must be accurate in what they write because eventually it will catch up with them and it could possibly have them lose their job. Also, people reading the story will never believe what the reporter says if they continue to not attribute the source! This shows that many journalists can get away with a lot of things because the people will believe it and will not double check it!
ReplyDeleteI think Shane's Wikipedia hoax was very clever. Teachers today tell their students to never use Wikipedia as a major source for papers, and it's shocking to see how many publications were quick to use the quote. This experiment really goes to show how important attribution is in journalistic writing. Yes, it is good to get the story first, but reporters should always remember to get their facts right. It should be the journalists' priority to be accurate and precise, and they should be able to trace it back to a reliable primary source before publishing anything. Publishing incorrect information makes these newspapers and online blogs look ignorant and unprofessional. I was also surprised at how only The Guardian admitted to their mistake.
ReplyDeleteLaura N.
ReplyDeleteI think it was brilliant what Shane did. He taught everyone a lesson that Wikipedia cannot
be trusted. A journalist can't get their facts from just one source online. They have to find several sources that say the same thing to make sure a statement is true. This article is like Shattered Glass; no one, especially a journalist, should write about or post false information. Many people believe anything they see in news, so facts should be straight.
I thought that Shane's hoax was quite funny, and shows us that we can't always rely on internet sources, especially a site like wikipedia. Teachers are constantly telling students not use wikipedia as one of their sources, but I guess some of those journalists didn't get the memo.
ReplyDeleteI found it sad, though, that so many journalists fell for the hoax. Journalists should always double check and triple check every thing that goes into their articles for reliabilty. As a reader, I find it upsetting when journalist fail to achieve accuracy in their writing. How am I suppose to trust that writer, or even that paper, if they don't check their articles for correctness?
I thought that Shane's hoax was quite funny, and shows us that we can't always rely on internet sources, especially a site like wikipedia. Teachers are constantly telling students not use wikipedia as one of their sources, but I guess some of those journalists didn't get the memo.
ReplyDeleteI found it sad, though, that so many journalists fell for the hoax. Journalists should always double check and triple check every thing that goes into their articles for reliabilty. As a reader, I find it upsetting when journalist fail to achieve accuracy in their writing. How am I suppose to trust that writer, or even that paper, if they don't check their articles for correctness?
After watching the video in class and reading this article, it is easy to see how easily editors and journalists can be fooled by incorrect "facts" and fabricated information. If the college student really did do this for the sole purpose of seeing what journalists would make of the quote, which I find slightly hard to believe, it was a clever way to point out to journalists that it's very easy to make a mistake. However, it was almost cruel and definitely unnecessary to do this at a time when he knew many journalists would be looking at the site, because this probably created many problems between the faulty journalists and their editors.
ReplyDeleteAlso, many people may not at first think of this story as having anything to do with the death of Maurice Jarre, but this was the lady's obituary. Even though she was slightly famous, she was still a real person. No one should have someone play a hoax on their obituary, and no grieving family should have to hear about how the college kid did it on purpose to use it as a lesson for journalists. This journalistic test has proved useful, yes, but also very insensitive.