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. In addition, 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. A few years ago 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 absolutely amazes me, and I find it very interesting. This story really opens my eyes to the fact that anyone can put anything that they want out there, and no one is stopping them. It really surprises me that Fitzgerald's experiment actually worked on such an experienced group of people. The journalists that took Fitzgerald's quote from Wikipedia probably knew it was wrong to take that information, especially because the quote did not have a source attached. The journalists most likely used the quote out of laziness or a short deadline. Some were probably to lazy to investigate the quote, and others probably needed something quick on the story because of a tight deadline. This just goes to show that even the most experienced of people make mistakes.
ReplyDeleteI commend Fitzgerald for creating the concept of fooling journalists by putting false information on the internet. This example just goes to show that multiple sources are needed and the idea of fact-checking is incredibly important. Many different sources of journalism reported this false news until Fitzgerald had to explain to them that it was his experiment. Unfortunately, it diminishes the journalists integrity for reporting false information. However, I think all journalists should look to this experiment as an example to always fact-check and make sure there is some sort of attribution connected with every piece of information.
ReplyDeleteFitzgerald's project creative, brilliant, and even almost comical. I am shocked that so many journalists went immediatly to Wikipedia to obtain information for their articles. Knowing how easily they quoted the fabrication makes me question if the articles I read are reliable. Although I've never doubted the integrity of the newspapers I read, this story has made me more aware to double check sources.
ReplyDeleteI was shocked to find out that some journalists would even consider looking at Wikipedia for information on an article. It is a well known fact that Wikipedia is an unreliable website, because it can be edited from the public, and I did not understand why any journalist would take such a risk. It simply amazed me that some of the papers that used this incorrect quote did not inform everyone of their mistake. This article makes me wonder what "quotes" or "facts" that we think are true, are actually false.
ReplyDeleteThe experiment was certainly very interesting, and even a bit entertaining. Journalists are used to their information being believed, and so some of them occasionally take certain liberties with information. Fitzgerald certainly threw the media for a loop. On a more serious note, this casts a dubious light on journalism. If anyone didn't previously understand the importance of attribution, they do now.
ReplyDeleteFitzgerald's experiment shows how the media is so focused on grabbing the newest story, that they wouldn't even know, or care, if it was true. I think his hoax was a wake up call that writers should always check their sources,but it amazes me how they had to learn that so recently. It is sad to know that writers sometimes use "phoney" and incorrect information, because some people already have a low opinion of journalists.Fitzgerald's experiment was, in my opinion, a success, because I believe now people are more skeptical of where the information they read comes from.
ReplyDeleteI am utterly shocked by the results of Fitzgeralds experiment. It just shows how much not only people but reporters have come to depend on the internet as a prime source of information. This makes me question how much of what we read online is actually true, and what is really made up. If one student can put up a false quote that catches the eyes of millions of people, then who is to say that whatever else we read isn't just made up from someones head. This is a wake up call to many journalist and reporters all around the world. If you are writing an article on something, and happen to find a quote on it, then you should make sure to double check and see if that quote is reliable. This just doesn't apply to quotes but any information you find on the internet should always be checked and compared to that of another source, to make sure that it is accurate.
ReplyDeleteI commend Fitzgerald for coming up with such a clever way to stump journalists. It goes to show that not everything you find on the world-wide web is factual, or even real at that matter. The results of this experiment reiterate the fact that any information you read needs to be checked and re-checked before inserting it into any news articles. It's so interesting that these experienced journalists just took something off of Wikipedia and used it in such a prominent article, without even a solid source. Instances just like these cause the integrity of such journalists to be lost. To further prevent these things happening, journalists and writers need to be 100% positive that the information they are using is credited and factual. This experiment was an eye-opener to many of how you cannot believe everything you read.
ReplyDeleteI find Fitzgerald's experimental results appalling. Countless teachers have enforced that Wikipedia is an unreliable source; it truly shocks me that a professional publication would use such a mediocre source. In my opinion, this shows laziness on the journalists part. The quote was fabricated, meaning it would not show up anywhere else. If the writers would have checked for at least one more source they would have discovered the quote was phoney. This proves how important it is to make sure your sources are reliable and to attribute all information that is not common knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI am so shocked to see how many news companies used those quotes without even trying to locate the primary source, or even just another source. I believe that the journalist wanted to be the first to get the story out with this quote so they were fast about the article, but not accurate. I have been taught my whole life to always check for more than one source, just to be sure that the information you are using is correct. These journalist did not do that and now they have to face the punishments. It is so important to make sure that the information you are using is accurate.
ReplyDeleteI find it rather comical how his experiment turned out. First of all, the journalists were relying on Wikipedia for information, which is known to not always have valid facts. Assuming they should know this about Wikipedia already, they should have made sure any information they got from that source was correct. That quote wasn't anything that had to do with his death or was of much significance, which is why i think they weren't eager to check if it was correct information or not. However, even though the quote wasn't very significant, you're reporting a quote, which can do a lot of harm if you give credit (or false credit) to the wrong being.
ReplyDeleteI am very surprised at the fact that journalists rely on Wikipedia as a primary source, with the knowledge that it isn't trustworthy. If they are going to publish something in the media, they should know the risks of using a deceptive website and at least check their information with other sources. I realize that journalists are always attempting to crack the story first and be the first to publish it in their newspaper, but if the story isn't accurate, then it doesn't have any value. Fitzgerald's plan was a perfect way to remind journalists to always use reliable sources, and to always double check any information you collect.
ReplyDeleteI am not surprised with Fitzgerald's findings. In this "age of instant news," the "increasingly Internet-dependent media" does not uphold accuracy and accountability.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Siobhain Butterworth, the readers' editor at the Guardian, that we should not use any information or material that cannot be "traced back to a reliable primary source." This approach allows us to establish credibility and protects us from potential liabilities.
Fitzgerald's findings didn't shock me. Of course, the newspapers didn't like it, but that's more because it makes those papers that used the fake quote look bad. Editors and Journalist need to be more aware of what they're printing and where their information comes from. If students at a school are discouraged from using Wikipedia, then journalists at a newspaper shouldn't be using it. Newspapers depend on credibility, and using questionable online sources is not good for their credibility.
ReplyDelete