Give Credit Where Credit's Due: Duping the Media with Wikis

by J. Butler, Content Development Specialist

When notable French composer Maurice Jarre died on March 28th, 2009, Dublin university student Shane Fitzgerald saw a golden opportunity to test accountability in an age of instantly updated global news --a community that's become more and more reliant on Internet research.

And how did he do this, exactly? Easy: by changing the composer's Wikipedia entry, and in the process, duping journalists all across the world.

After a class studying how information traveled through the public sphere, Fitzpatrick saw the opportunity for a curious social experiment. He simply inserted a quote he'd written himself into the Wiki page-- the entire process, from composition to posting, took less than 15 minutes--and then watched as the quote was used repeatedly not only on blogs, but on official news sites. The quote in question:

"One could say my life itself has been one long soundtrack. Music was my life, music brought me to life, and music is how I will be remembered long after I leave this life. When I die there will be a final waltz playing in my head that only I can hear."

...was clearly angled to appeal to the average obituary writer working on a deadline. He left it deliberately without any citation--a fact which quickly caught the eye of the thousands of 'voluntary' editors that monitors and edits the public pages of Wikipedia. Administrators promptly removed the unsubstantiated quote, but only after it had begun to circulate in emerging obits and memorials as one new piece cited the older piece.

From MSNBC:

Fitzgerald said one of his University College Dublin classes was exploring how quickly information was transmitted around the globe. His private concern was that, under pressure to produce news instantly, media outlets were increasingly relying on Internet sources — none more ubiquitous than the publicly edited Wikipedia.

When he saw British 24-hour news channels reporting the death of the triple Oscar-winning composer, Fitzgerald sensed what he called "a golden opportunity" for an experiment on media use of Wikipedia.

[...]

If anything, Fitzgerald said, he expected newspapers to avoid his quote because it had no link to a source — and even might trigger alarms as "too good to be true." But many blogs and several newspapers used the quotes at the start or finish of their obituaries.

Wikipedia spokesman Jay Walsh said he appreciated the Dublin student's point, and said he agreed it was "distressing so see how quickly journalists would descend on that information without double-checking it."

I worked at a university-funded writing centre during my undergrad, and I can't tell you how many times a week I'd have to explain to a student that Wikipedia is an unacceptable source. So a part of me isn't surprised that journalists are still figuring out how to negotiate the cluster of facts we call the Internet. Amid the temptation of so much information, and working against a tight deadline, it can be easy to let something slip and trust that the information is sound.

But it still puts the problem of accountability into glaring perspective, and makes you wonder how often facts like this, no matter how small, go unchecked. My knee jerk reaction is when in doubt, cite it. No one can really fault you for giving TOO much credit.


Source: Student hoaxes world's media on Wikipedia (MSNBC)

The New York Times—No More?

by J. Butler, Applecore Content Development Specialist

The big news this past month was the possibility that within five to ten years, heavyweight the New York Times could either be gone or drastically altered.

Way back in the 20^th century, that announcement would have been unthinkable—since 1896, the Times has been a sonic force in modern journalism. In 2002, the publication won seven Pulitzer Prizes, largely for their superhuman coverage of the September 11^th attacks (the standing record had been four). But these days, suggesting the New York Times’ eventual absence from newsstands is no longer an outrageous statement—in fact, it comes off as pretty tuned in.

Back in 2008, the paper had announced plans to borrow up to $225 million against its new Manhattan offices. Then, amid reports of faltering ad revenue and circulation, January 2009 saw a 48% plunge in the Times fourth quarter earnings, blamed on the natural decrease of advertising in a weak economy.

The Times is treading waters dotted with several scandals (see Jayson Blair, a Times writer who had faked at least 36 of his stories) and controversies—like the costly 2006 re-design, which decreased page size by half an inch and slashed content, hoping to make the paper more “reader friendly.”

The paper has slowly been shifting focus to its online division, and the numbers aren't lying: there are 1.1 million daily subscribers to the print edition - and 1.5 million readers online. Arthur Sulzberger, chairman of the New York Times, has made his priorities clear: "I really don't know whether we'll be printing the Times in five years...Internet is a wonderful place to be and we're leading there."

The New York Times is a high-profile example of a shift in print media which, depending on who you ask, means one of two things: reinvention or extinction.

Worried parties turn to the Internet for the real scoop—in particular, to voices like The Media is Dying. As a Twitter feed, it’s fairly straightforward: it reports industry lay-offs, big name agency moves and closing publications. And it does all this without adding an ounce of commentary or bias, relaying only the facts.

It’s created a lot of buzz in a relatively short amount of time—over 10,000 unique subscribers since its November 2008 inception—and has spawned a sister site meant to help the recently jobless (@themediaishiring).

On paper, things certainly don’t look good for traditional print media. But as the anonymous contributors to @themediaisdying will tell you, this looming change isn’t necessarily a bad thing:

Old media is not doomed but it certainly is changing, and fast. [New] generations are growing up with a myriad of technologies and options to get their news. . . social media [allows people to] get their news faster, easier and more personalized than ever before.

After the initial growing pains, while the economy is shaky and new media finds firm footing, this change will bring positive results. As the @TheMediaisDying creators suggest, it’s a demand that traditional media step up to meet modern technology, and enter a world where the gap between consumer and producer is smaller than ever before.

Newspapers need to reinvent themselves

It’s no secret that the rise of the Internet has hit the newspaper industry hard. A recent survey by Pew Research Center illuminates this fact, revealing that more than 50% of 259 papers surveyed reported significant layoffs of newsroom staff.

To combat this attrition, newspapers are fighting back by creating blogs and microsites that allow readers to focus their attention on specific topics, and journalists are being trained to create and upload video content for the Web. Niche online ad networks are also gaining popularity, whereby newspapers band together to sell ads online. Industry observers are suggesting that newspaper publishers should publish digital editions for PDAs and cell phones and also publish more Web-only content.

Source: Mediaweek