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.
This story was alarming and a good reminder to us all that we simply cannot rely on the information that we find on the internet. Further, as students and certainly as journalists, we have a responsibility to verify the accuracy of information and then attribute. It is honestly a small price to pay for the ease with which we can now do research and be directed toward useful information with the click of a button. Our generation is very fortunate to have these research engines and tools that were not previously available, but they come with the responsibility to use them carefully.
ReplyDeleteI find it disturbing that practicing journalists would use Wikipedia not only as a source, but as their only source, especially because teachers do not even let students use Wikipedia. I also thought the hoax was ingenious; I wouldn't have guessed journalists would even look at Wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteI think people would rather read a story that is 100% true, definently. There is a huge difference between having a reliable source that may be blan and a source that just prints junk but is fun to read. The purpose of news is to know exactly what is going on and what is going on might not be that exciting, but it isn't supposed to be.
ReplyDeleteI think it was a very clever experiment the reporter from Dublin conducted. It cost a ton of reporters that used his false quote to lose their jobs. It just shows that if something gets printed and looked at enough, anyone could start to believe it. It probably made every reporter double check every source they use. It is odd that the reporters that used wikipedia would do such a thing, it makes it seem like they were taking thier jobs as a joke.
I find it shocking that this student was able to pull off such a hoax. No journalist should ever trust Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. They should have also found something to back up the quote’s credibility. This just goes to show that even though the Internet provides us with a bounty of information, it is hard to tell what is real and what is not. Journalists need to take extra care when using quotes and other information found on the Internet in order to keep up their paper’s credibility.
ReplyDeleteI think the article really stressed an important fact. Without attribution, no one will believe the credibility of your story.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, I was surprised that so many reporters trusted the information found on Wikipedia. Even journalist students know better than to rely on that site for the facts. Even so, the story really emphasizes the importance of attribution and the repercussions if a reporter fails to double-check the accuracy of that information. However, it's unfortunate that society would have to go to such extremes for many reporters to realize the importance of attribution.
ReplyDeleteIt was alarming to me to read this article because I as a student, never use Wikipedia as a source because I know it to be a questionable website. It surprised me that trained journalists would use it as a source to find quotes when they should be aware of its faulty information.
ReplyDeleteThis was a real eye opening story. Our society has become so interdependent on technology which makes us as a society we become lazy at times. It is remarkable that publications that we know and trust failed us because they forgot to double check their sources which is such an elementary aspect of journalism.Yes,people want things now but i believe it is better to get things right the first time so you don't lose the credibility of your publication. It makes you question if stories with false attribution have been overlooked in the past and if citizens are really getting the "whole story".
ReplyDeleteThe article truly taught me to be careful about what information I use from the internet as not only a future journalist, but as a student. I also agree with how credibility is more important and trust worthy than getting the story first. It doesn't just protect the writer, but also readers need to know the information given to them is accurate, and not anything that can be compared to a fictional book.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that reporters would use Wikipedia as their only source when so many people know the information is not necessarily true. It just goes to show you can't believe everything you read, and that journalists should be as accurate as they can be.
ReplyDeleteThis article was the perfect example of lack of attribution = lack of credibility = lack of readers, because I'm sure the readers of The Guardian of Britain were irritated with the paper and I bet it lost a few readers with the incident. This really shows that you have to be careful when getting news and not to just get it to be first or fast, but to get it right!
ReplyDeleteI find it very odd that publications allow their writers to use Wikipedia as a sources. Also i find it weird that even though their was no sources for that quote, journalist would use it anyways and that their editor was ok with that and still ran the story. All journalist know that a good story always involves attribution, this article shows you that you always need to check and keep checking your sources.
ReplyDeleteI was honestly shocked by the article. I cannot believe that so called journalists would actually use Wikipedia as a source, let alone their only source. It goes to show that the media is oftentimes lazy and just looking for convenience rather than accuracy and that we should definitely not believe everything we read.
ReplyDeleteAs a student, I have always been prohibited to use Wikipedia as a source for any project. I find it somewhat ironic that major news organizations use Wikipedia as a credible source when High School students know better. This article definitely made an alarming point and has made me question everything I read. I certainly hope that this is not a regular occurrence.
ReplyDeleteI think it's incredibly unprofessional to think Wikipedia as a credible source for anything more than a class project. You can't believe most things on the internet and you shouldn't base your entire story on something you are not 100% positive is correct. This is an excellent wake up call to everyone who wants to be a journalist to double check our sources and to not trust everything we read on line.
ReplyDeleteThis story just emphasizes the desperation of many publications to get the news first, and their lack of concern with getting it right. Fitzgerald proved that accuracy often takes a backseat in the world of journalism. As young reporters, we should learn from the mistakes of big publications like the Guardian and not fall into the same trap.
ReplyDeleteI think it is fascinating that journalists would be that quick to believe what they read. Fascinating as it is, it is not at all surprising to me. As they have a deadline for their article to be ready by, it is understandable that they would be hungry for any juicy information that they can get. I do not at all agree with the companies that are angry at the student for posting this for, in the end, it is their own fault for so willingly believing a source without checking the credibility.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is very inconsiderate for journalists to use Wikipedia as their chief resource. Their job is to get accurate news to people, and it isn't news if it isn't true. Students aren't supposed to use Wikipedia in their homework, so I find it alarming that writers of The Guardian, an internationally read paper is using information off of this site without even double checking their facts. I also disagree with papers who say the student did a bad thing by posting the phony information. That is the whole point of Wikipedia. Anyone can post anything they want on the site, and journalists should keep that in mind when using this information.
ReplyDeleteI was really surprised that this hoax worked. Because sites like Wikipedia are so easy to get compiled information fast, I can see how it would be a good tool. However, anyone can edit a page and the credibility is completely unreliable. Journalists do need to be very careful about where they get their information so it does not have an impact on their newspaper and their career.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the story really discredits Wikipedia in particular. After all, Wikipedia self-corrected the error. But for me, the lesson is that any single source can prove unreliable (I have found errors in most my textbooks, including the Folger Library Shakespeares). Cross-checking and attribution are essential, and once again Ms. Waldsmith teaches us with great real world examples! (So now I'll just rip it off and use it in my AP Gove class without attribution, since we are studying the media :-)
ReplyDelete