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.