I agree that this problem is not exclusive to the medium, but it is endemic. I mean, many blogs speculated about Adobe's motivation for releasing "free" software, but did anyone pick up a phone or send an email to ask them about it?

Of course they didn't. Mostly because they just wanted to have the story "first", and secondly because most of them either don't have editors / fact-checkers or don't care about them.

It's the price we pay for getting news as fast as we do.

You're right about they trying to get the story out ASAP, I always wonder why bloggers won't have the same adrenaline rush to get their facts right.

Because those articles are generally boring, disappointing, and come out hours after all the other sites have amassed 22k shares and likes for their articles, earning them The Master of the Internet badge on publishers-circle-leaflet.com for the day. It's a new social site where bloggers get badges for having other people do all the hard work, and all your positive reputation gets reset by a rogue cron script at night.

Because the correcting article is another post, which means more views. And even more for the "adobe cs2 controversy" article the next day.

If it is the price "we" paid, I didn't agree to pay it. I'd much rather read a slower source that, you know, doesn't libel people at the drop of a hat and without apology. I honestly wish, as damaging to the free flow of information on the Internet as it would be, that victims like Adobe would start cleaning bloggers out for shit like this. I know I'm harping on Gizmodo/Gawker/whatever, but I know they're definitely not the only blog slum lord out there.

The expectation for immediate news is damaging in a lot of ways, this one is just the worst and most visible.

I don't understand -- if you want a slower news source, read one! It's up to you. You can read the New York Times Sunday Review, the Economist, the New Yorker, the daily New York Times... whatever you want. All of these outfits reported this story correctly, which is to say, they didn't write about it. Nobody is forcing you to read Gizmodo.

The idea that getting things fast and wrong is a staple of "media in general" is ridiculous. The vast majority of the media acquitted themselves fine here.

Former investigative journalist here, though I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with the topic at hand. You'll notice, if you read carefully, that I didn't say anybody was forcing me to do anything and instead I took issue with being lumped into the sweeping "this is the price we pay" assertion made by the comment to which I was replying.

I'm perfectly aware of what I can read. I wish blogs were a bit higher-standard, so I could enjoy them as well without the reservations that it requires.

EDIT: Okay, now that you've ninja-edited in a second paragraph, I'll respond to that too.

Even CNN is guilty of this. "This Just In" during Hurricane Sandy ran some Twitter troll's report of the NYSE flooding. Remember Ryan Lanza? Yep, "This Just In" as well. Half of the rest of the world sees the story on CNN.com and says, hey, that's a confirm, it aired on CNN! It's probably an associate producer manning the desk straight out of J-school, and that big "Publish" button is pretty God damned alluring.

Something about blogs, even under the CNN umbrella, seems to make facts a second-class citizen. "Breaking" doesn't mean the same thing that it did a couple decades ago, and integrity is crumbling with Internet journalism.

I don't think "blogs" deserve collective guilt for Gizmodo's sins any more than "the media" do. The vast majority of blogs acquitted themselves fine here. But wishing for better standards from "blogs" is like wishing "novels were a bit higher-standard." There are a lot of terrible novels in print (the majority even!), but you'd be foolish to blame the whole genre for the literary sins of "Fifty Shades of Grey."

That's a disingenuous distinction. By blogs I'm not saying the technical amalgamation of components that make a "web log", I'm saying the "typical news sources" that are cited on the Web these days. It's not about the genre, and you're oversimplifying my critique.

Would calling or emailing Adobe have caused any kind of response? Highly doubtful.

They got a response pretty quick in the forums, why should it be any different if you call / email?

> They got a response pretty quick in the forums, why should it be any different if you call / email?

Because:

> The contacts that journalists have can usually give a quick off the record "that's not correct" and kill a story like this.

Note the "off the record" part. You can't do something like that with forums; whatever you write there is public and will be regarded as official statement of the company, whether it is or not.

The contacts that journalists have can usually give a quick off the record "that's not correct" and kill a story like this. Perhaps an on the record quick statement, or a callback within a half hour or so once the appropriate people are consulted.

In cases like this where the morality of the company is not in question, journos don't have any reason to distrust the spokespeople. "That's incorrect. Give me ten minutes to call legal." Bam. Dead story.

You'd be surprised how much you can do once you have the right phone numbers. The main switchboard is never the right one.

How would one go about building a list of said right phone numbers? (legitimately curious)

The way it works on city desks of good newspapers is, long apprenticeships. It's amazing how deeply knowledgeable long-time reporters can be (not talking about op-ed writers -- talking about journalists and reporters). It's also amazing how much information is known by these reporters and editors, but does not make it into stories because there's no space or because an independent corroboration cannot be found. That background information can help to frame the way the story is written, but might never appear in print.

I inherited my Rolodex from the writer I replaced. Then you just add to it over time. Meet new PR guy for WhizCo at an unrelated story? Another card for the Rolodex. The savvy PR people will reach out to you without prompt, as well, which can be a good sign for a working relationship. Press releases are a 50/50 shot for a good number; depends on the source.

Other commenter's right, too, there is a lot of institutional knowledge at journalism shops. A casual newsroom "who do we know at Acme?" or "who likes us at the Department of Labor?" almost never goes unanswered.

A wise reporter once told me half of reporting is who will answer the phone, the other is deadlines.

Tech people have this stuff, too, particularly in the backbone transit game. White courtesy phone, that sort of thing; BGP flaps don't go through technical support. Those numbers are guarded closely, though, because they usually ring 3-4 feet from a NOC on-duty engineer.

I agree, but the entire premise of the blogosphere makes it worse. Ethically gray publishers like Gizmodo make it even worse still. Traditional journalists would be smart enough to check with Adobe for confirmation before telling the world what Adobe is doing.

(Quit making me type "blogosphere". I'm going to develop a rash.)