(I was going to present the following in a very different way, using a particular person, but I just can’t bring myself to do it.) 

What if someone decided to spread the rumor that — oh, I dunno who, pick a name — was about to be charged as a pedophile? Is it OK to run that through Twitter to verify it? Should journalists pass it along, just to make sure it’s true before… what, passing it along again?

The difference between Twitter and a newsroom is that the former is a public forum while the latter is a private forum for professionals to *determine* whether something should be released publicly. Yes, any joker with an Internet connection can publish whatever he wants. But that doesn’t make a journalist just another joker with an Internet connection. Quite the opposite – it’s more crucial than ever now for journalists to set themselves apart from Internet yammerers and rumormongers. Otherwise, why should we bother? Why should anyone pay us for separating facts from rumors? 

“RT:  This just in! @SoandSo is a pedophile!”
See, not true, and yet I just broadcast it as true to my hundreds of Twitter followers. Who may now retweet it. And they believe me because I say I am a journalist, and there are standards that go along with that.
Which means, unLIKE a newsroom, but very much like a newsPAPER, I have a responsibility to say, “I was misled in my previous tweet. @SoandSo is not a pedophile. Here is why I was wrong: {link}”

Anything that gets passed along on Twitter as rumor, speculation or hearsay should and must be vetted and researched before any news organization decides to go with it, regardless of the platform. 

Is this guy joking? Any reporter who passes along a false rumor on twitter should be fired.

Yes, Twitter behaves more like a newsroom than a newspaper. But with one really important difference: Rumors in the newsroom generally stay in the newsroom until they’re confirmed. Saying “It’s OK, it’s only Twitter, so it doesn’t have to be true” is exactly the same as saying “It’s OK, it’s only the front page, so it doesn’t have to be true.”

There’s a big difference between mentioning a rumor among a couple colleagues in a newsroom, and broadcasting it to heaven knows how many people on Twitter. People look to journalists to tell them the truth and separate the signal from the noise. We shouldn’t be adding to the noise.

Let’s remember Voltaire’s wise words: “In the case of news, we must await the sacrament of confirmation.”

There’s a big difference between mentioning a rumor among a couple colleagues in a newsroom, and broadcasting it to heaven knows how many people on Twitter. People look to journalists to tell them the truth and separate the signal from the noise. We shouldn’t be adding to the noise.

Let’s remember Voltaire’s wise words: “In the case of news, we must await the sacrament of confirmation.”

This is unbelievable.  The only thing a reporter has to lose is his credibility.

If you want to say it is a rumor, then maybe supermarket tabloids are for you.   Sure, they break stories, but they also miss frequently.  What reporter would want that reputation?

Amie Steffen and Dan Mitchell are right on the mark. 

You know, really, there’s no point in checking a story at all.  The Intertubes will do it for you.  If the story is false, the correct information will surface eventually.  This approach will save tons of time and reporters will be able to float many stories in a day, instead of just one or two.  Gotta love it.

Dan Mitchell wrote:  What if someone decided to spread the rumor that — oh, I dunno who, pick a name — was about to be charged as a pedophile?

Well, that’s EXACTLY what happened to Michael Jackson–aided and abetted by jeernalists who used and abused Mr. Jackson to fill their headline coffers.  For over 20 years, Mr. Jackson was treated as so much fodder to the rumor mill that eventually (figuratively) killed him.  An irresponsible media is precisely the reason that one man–Evan Chandler, Jackson’s 1993 extortionist–could create a cottage industry to torture a kind, gentle man who was guilty of nothing but being different and caring about others.

Because the media is many times irresponsible and unethical, they were complicit in Chandler’s crime and the world has lost a brilliant entertainer and generous humanitarian. I hope you’re all pleased with yourselves–and don’t you dare blame only the tabloids.  Mainstream media has devolved into medialoid–infected by tabloid journalism–and, unfortunately, it doesn’t look like there’s any antidote to a pus-filled industry hell bent on journalism of personal destruction.   

In the case of Louise Mensch, she misspoke.  Later disclosures revealed she was right about the slimy activities of Piers Morgan; wrong about the specific book in which he wrote and/or spoke of them.  Because she was only slightly wrong, Morgan gets a pass–well, at least so far; lots more disclosures are likely to come–and journalists are falling all over themselves to kiss the little toady’s British arse.  Disgusting.