Should news sites post first and ask questions later? Consultants to
The Columbus Dispatch apparently think so.
Editor Benjamin Marrison reports that consultants have told the Dispatch that
readers don't object when online reports have errors. "They said Internet readers want to be part of the reporting process," Marrison wrote. "The consultants continued: Online news consumers don't
mind if your initial report is inaccurate. They just want it first. Online readers know that, over time, the truth will come out."
If Marrison's column accurately summarizes the report,
the Dispatch should demand its money back.
At best, the idea that Web users care less about accuracy than do print readers is insulting to both online journalists and their readers.
At worst, it will result in loss of credibility for news sites, not to mention libel lawsuits.
The most attention-grabbing rumors often turn out to be false -- and not just a little bit
false, but completely and utterly fictional. Running such stories might result in a short-term spike in page views, but carries very real and obvious risks -- both to the publication and the subject
of the stories.
Consider the recent debacle of ZDNet's Yahoo-Iran report. A blogger decided to publish the "not completely buttoned down" report that Yahoo had given the Iranian
government names and emails of 200,000 Iranian Yahoo users during the election protests. "My sources indicate the information comes from a group of resisters who have infiltrated the administration
and are leaking out important information," stated the post.
The post went live before the blogger got a response from Yahoo -- which denied the report. ZDNet later issued a retraction,
but not before its scoop spread throughout the Web. Surely no one seriously contends that newspapers would be better off if they followed ZDNet's lead here.
Still, it's easy to see why
newspaper executives would find solace in the notion that papers are struggling because they value accuracy too highly.
Marrison himself seems to conclude that the consultants' report
shows that newspapers can't compete with the Web is because newspapers care too much about getting the story right. "Maybe that's why newspapers have struggled with the Internet," he writes. "Being
first is preferred. Being correct is paramount." While newspapers obviously are having difficulty these days, it's not because they're the only publications that care about accuracy. It's because
newspapers didn't recognize until very late in the game that they had lost a monopoly on distributing news, commentary and ads in their local markets.
As a result, newspaper executives
made one questionable business decision after another. They stood on the sidelines as people embraced free listings on Craigslist. They viewed their own Web sites as competitors. And now they denounce search
engines for linking to their articles and whine that would-be readers are spending too much time on Wikipedia and Facebook, all the while plotting to put more content behind paid walls in hopes that
readers will start paying for the same material they're used to getting for free.