Comments on: Nothing’s sacred in the online jungle

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:56:44 +0000

Nancy - you’re right. The real tragedy is (as officially reported this morning) the loss of someone’s life.
But I still think we need to debate the rights and wrongs of how we receive our information. We need a free media for many, many reasons - but we need standards as well.

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:49:23 +0000

Jayne - I concur with you. Cheque book journalism is nothing new, but OK!has taken it to a new low. As Darren says in his comment, it’s the precedent that it sets: suddenly, anything can be bought with impunity.

Craig - I see your point but my problem with Time Out New York is two-fold: the unseemly rush to get the story out meant dealing with an unofficial (and, it appears, unreliable) source that got it wrong. And, when faced with correcting the mistake, the publication seemed more concerned with defending its sources and its approach than being contrite and shutting up.

Daily Stab - I guess it’s a hard lesson learned. I realise that yours is a “fun sight” and you have a disclaimer about accuracy, but the power to publish is one that can’t be taken lightly. When I was reporting I got the details of an inquest wrong. Now, that person was already dead, but my errors didn’t upset the relatives any less and I got the editorial roasting of my life for it.

By: nancy

nancy — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 04:37:45 +0000

I am heart broken by the news of this accident. Do we need to argue over all the reporting issues? I have treated people with this exact diagnosis and have seen many survive. Why would such an awful thing happen? I don’t understand and hope that the family will find some comfort somehow.

By: Daily Stab

Daily Stab — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:19:23 +0000

In my own defense, the incorrect news of Natasha’s death came across several news outlets yesterday. I’m just trying to keep my readers up on the news so I posted it, then shortly after finding out it was untrue I fixed it and apologized, but didn’t try to hide it like some other sites.
I was honest about it and sincerely apologized. It was an honest mistake and believe me, I learned my lesson. I will not be so quick to post news of a death ever again.
It is very awful, but please know that I definitely did not start it and would have NEVER posted knowing it was untrue.

As for OK! Mags ‘tribute’ to a very much alive Jade Goody, THAT is disgusting.

By: Craig McGill

Craig McGill — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:01:29 +0000

Agree on OK, the Richardson thing - as Jayne points out - show the dangers of rushing to be first with a story. In the mass media - ie, the papers - that can be brokered by the luxury of time, but as we move to more 24 hour news can we expect this to be the norm?

I hope not, because let’s be honest - is reporting the death of a celebrity’s wife the sort of scoop that wins awards or acclaim - or that the site itself would boast about? No, it certainly isn’t.

(You may be a little harsh on the reporter though: they took their info from a contact in good faith - and then corrected it - and hospitals and police no longer relase information on someone unless you are a direct relative)

Then again, I don’t get the obsession with celebrities for news (though they have their place in features). Was never something that worked for me, even when I was at the Mirror and elsewhere.

By: Darren

Darren — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:44:12 +0000

The Goody thing bothers me most, simply because they went ahead with it, knowing full well it was false. They made a fiscal decision to release a magazine claiming to have Jade’s “final words” just so they can make money now and continue to make it after she has passed. I don’t care that Jade’s family are OK (excuse the pun) with it - this sets a horrible precedent.

By: jaynehowarth

jaynehowarth — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:14:56 +0000

I couldn’t agree more with what you have said.

The OK tribute is absolutely breath-takingly awful. It is in such bad taste that I can barely comprehend that a publication would consider it to be a good thing to do. If I were the editor I would be hanging my head in shame.

As for the Natasha Richardson story, it illustrates the perils of 24 hour immediate media - it doesn’t matter if the facts are wrong, who got the story out first?

It’s a bad day for responsible journalism.