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 thought the experiment that Shane Fitzgerald created and tested was very interesting. I was shocked that it took so long for Wikipedia to correct what Fitzgerald said. I feel that journalists and editors have a lot more things to worry about and attribute now than they did a while ago.
ReplyDeleteI was mostly just surprised that Wikipedia was able to correct the quote, and that newspapers used it. Wikipedia has always been portrayed as unreliable, which it is, most of the time. I wasn't as surprised that the newspapers didn't truly come out and say that they were wrong because it makes them look less credible. Even if they privately apologized to Fitzgerald, they wouldn't want to mention it to the general public, because they would probably only then be aware that the quote was incorrect.
ReplyDeleteI think Shane Fitzgerald's experiment was a real eye-opener. Journalists: this is your wake up call -- attribute and check your sources! I was really surprised at how many papers and news websites used the phony quote without bothering to check it; in my opinion, that's just lazy and sloppy. I read the paper because I want facts, not just something that sounds nice that they found on a website that's not known for great credibility.
ReplyDeleteFitzgerald's hoax in my mind, is unbelievable (in a good way). It was amazing and disturbing to find out that not only small town reporters,but worldwide newspapers and websites used a non-credible quote. To think that sources we rely on use such information in their articles! But what is even worse than using false information, is to not publicly state that you were wrong . . .
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cassidy, it is a wake up call for journalists! This makes me wonder what other quotes or facts that aren't attributed are false and why newspapers hesitate to say they're wrong. Also, agreeing with Emily, Wikipedia is already an unreliable source and big newspaper reporters shouldn't even resort to it for their information.
ReplyDeleteWhat amazed me most about this was the fact that any reporter would use Wikipedia as a source. As any student knows, Wikipedia is and infinitely helpful, but not a credible source. I think these reporters and newspapers need to take a step back and reevaluate their journalistic practices. Fitzgerald's experiment exposed this to the reporters, but more importantly the readers.
ReplyDeleteThe experiment that Fitzgerald conducted goes to show how important it is for journalists to have a second source affirm their facts and quotes. If the writer from The Guardian had checked more websites than only Wikipedia, he would not have published a false quote. This makes me wonder what I have read in newspapers that may not have been true. It is journalist's job to do everything in their power to assure that they are not supplying their writers with false information.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was really clever how Shane Fitzgerald made up that quote. It sounded very realistic and believable. This just proves how careful journalists and researchers need to be when getting information from the internet. No matter how professional or realistic something sounds, you always need to make sure that there is another source to back up that information.
ReplyDeleteI am shocked at how quickly the fake note Shane Fitzgerald made up was absorbed by the media. I believe that it is a known fact that Wikipedia is extremely unreliable. And that it has the ability to be changed by anyone that has access to the site on the internet. His experiment definitely goes to show that many, if not most, uncredited online sources are incorrect and should not be trusted.
ReplyDeleteI think that the quote Shane Fitzgerald just proves that sometimes journalists are so focused on getting the story first, instead of getting it right. The reporter should've seen that there was a lack of attribution, or they should've researched the quote more to see when it was said etc. But instead they just used the quote and didn't take the time to research it and make sure it was credible. Also, at Mercy we are told not to use Wikipedia because you don't know who wrote the information. Anyone could post almost anything. The reporter should've known better than to use Wikipedia as an information website.
ReplyDeleteAs unbelievable as the whole experiment was, I don't think the results were that surprising. With today's technology, it is becoming easier and easier to be lazy. However, it is surprising to me that reporters would use Wikipedia as a source. Most 5th graders know that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and is quite unreliable. I think the real problem here is laziness, reporters need to step up to the plate and do their jobs they way they need to be done- even if it is harder.
ReplyDeleteI think it was a very good experiment for Shane Fitzgerald to create. When researching for projects, teachers always say to stay away from Wikipedia! Here is a perfect example of why! The internet is not always a reliable source!
ReplyDeleteThat little rascal! Good for Shane Fitzgerald. He truly tested the reliability of reporters now a days. I am shocked to see the trust and dependency reporters put in not only websites but in wikipedia of all sources! A site that can be edited by the public should not be a reporters go to source for accurate information. It makes one rethink the validation of the day to day newspaper.
ReplyDeleteIt really disappoints me to see that so many journalists and other publications used Wikipedia in this case. I feel like if they were knowledgeable and really knew how to research properly, it should come naturally to them that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Shane Fitzgerald was able to reveal that his information was inaccurate, but it makes me question how many people posted false information on Wikipedia that has been used in publications without us knowing.
ReplyDelete