David Chartier at Ars Technica wrote an article titled "Congress considers iPhone" citing The Hill clip as its only source. "The iPhone may soon be a new option for congressional members by the next Congress in January 2009," Chartier wrote. Ventura told me that sort of a timetable was unrealistic and the Hill article got that completely incorrect.
Brian X. Chen wrote on Wired.com's Gadget Lab blog that "House Members Vote for iPhone Adoption", saying members of the U.S. House of Representatives were "demanding iPhones." Ventura told me that a members had inquired if the iPhone would be offered at any point, but "no one was 'demanding' them."
Matt Buchanan, writing for Gizmodo, said that members and staff "have about 8,200 BlackBerrys between them, ... but, for a few of the fancier ones, that's not good enough. They want iPhones." Buchanan noted that the iPhone coming to Congress would be "something of a symbolic blow to RIM" -- too bad it's not happening any time soon.
Adrian Kingsley-Hughes wrote an article for ZDNet.com titled "Congress house members want iPhones!" Wrong.
iPhone Atlas, prominently branded CNet site, wrote "iPhones Staged to Take Over US Congress," and that iPhones were "at the top of the 'must-have' lists for members." Wrong.
The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) wrote "Your congressman wants an iPhone", citing The Hill as saying members could be getting iPhones when they return to DC after the elections. Not happening.
Boing Boing Gadgets got it wrong. So did PCMag.com. And the LA Times, Cult of Mac, and iPod Observer.
One phone call would have set the record straight -- but no one made it, and thus the story perpetuates. It leads me to wonder what other stories are completely wrong but accepted as fact.
Incidentally, I'm not immune to this either. I ran a story without confirmation and got the facts wrong.
Paul Boutin, whom I worked with at Valleywag, repeatedly told me to "pick up the phone" when I was reporting. "You never know what you're going to find out -- what scoop you might get." The blogosphere, and the media in general, would be a lot better if reporters would just heed that advice.
Read what Ventura had to say about iPhones in Congress in the following article:
(Photo by joelogon)
Comments
I love getting journalism lessons from washed-up hacks. This is awesome. I can't wait to learn more from Professor Pantload Golson.
I'm glad you feel like you've learned something today, but I don't think I've been at this long enough to be washed-up!
Thanks for the feedback, though. Next time leave your name!
My guess is the anonymous bitter guy was one of the bloggers who jumped all over that story!
I was *thinking* what anonymous said... not because I meant it, but I expected someone to post it as a comment. And he did.
As genuine as you are, bloggers can't be compared to journalists, and especially in a way that suggests quality is a factor. Sort of like arguing that the Supermarket tabloid is not a *real* newspaper, as the New York Times hustles to pay its bills and Google makes millions on ads placed on celebrity news blogs and mashups. Okay so a blog isn't a newspaper... so what? The blog readers like the blogs, newspaper readers are now reading blogs, and what blogger wants to be a failing newspaper or out of touch journalist?
If you assume the blogger seek the same external validation you seek as a journalist, you miss the mark. People who slight bloggers for credibility are to be ignored as the train rolls forward right over them. If they are strong enough to make a good case and expose blogging as well, less repectable, then... well... let's just say mean people suck.
The challenge is not to prove that blogging is second rate compared to real journalism.... the challenge is to be considered a successful respectable journalist in this modern media world.
Oh, and one place to start is by linking out to those who contribute comments or content to your publication. No-attribution black-hole publishing is lame and unworthy behavior of any journalist. So why do "respectable, fact-checking responsible journalists" do it, while bloggers link out to their supporters?
John: One area in which bloggers (or, more precisely, some bloggers) often trump mainstream media journalists is expertise. The Dan Rather/Bush National Guard memo fiasco is perhaps the most well-known example, but I see it practically every day in online reactions to media reports -- bloggers and online commenters point out mistakes in articles or questionable coverage decisions. We get this treatment on the Standard, and frankly, it's a great thing. It provides a dialogue, new points of view, and an extra layer of checks on our editorial processes.
Ian Lamont
Managing Editor
The Industry Standard
If the lesson is to contact the person you are writing about why didn't anyone contact Mr. Yager and get his side of the story instead of just taking the word of Mr. Ventura?
Post new comment