Blahg

11 February 2012

At 18:30 I received an e-mail from the New York Times announcing the death of Whitney Houston. It stated, matter of factly, that the cause of death and her location were unknown. The news sucked, no less and no more than the death of Amy Winehouse last summer or Michael Jackson back in 2009. All three were incredibly talented, but all three - yes, all three - lived dangerously and paid the price.

At 18:37, The Wrap sent its update that Whitney Houston was dead. She was found in New York City.

Reality: She was in Beverly Hills. Found at the very same hotel where a Grammys party was going to be held. The Grammys, the music industry's version of the Oscars, are to be held tomorrow night.

As minor as that factual error on the part of The Wrap may be, it's still symptomatic of today's new media. I appreciate the Times' acknowledgement of the lack of details. That's old school media and an old school way of doing things. It's also more accurate. The Wrap has sent more than its share of correction e-mails in the past after rushing out e-mails with errors as the result of any number of reasons, ultimately with the rush to be first being the number cause for the junk.

In this world of Facebook and Twitter, facts take second place to expedience.

Is it really okay to be wrong as long as you're first? Really?

Come on, people.

Earlier this week, I was looking over an article that listed what the author deemed to be the Top 10 worst errors in news reporting. Aside from an instance in 2004 and one in 2006, the others dated back decades.

One would think today's technology would make news reporting better, but that's not necessarily the case.

Whitney was in Beverly Hills. Not New York. That's a glaring mistake in reporting that's off by 3,000 miles. The entirely "other" coast. At least if the breathless news release had said she was out east it could be argued they were off by only two letters.

Blogging only makes things worse and, while I'm on the topic, I'll once again harp on my disapproval of the instant gratification generation fed by social media and bloggers who want to propagate information without an appreciation of the repurcussions of errors or the value of integrity and solid footwork.

Here's another minor example that's been bugging me and that is equally indicative of the downfall of quality information.

I'm interested in Canon's new G1 X camera. I went to Canon's site and read Canon's official press release, which indicated the camera would be available in February. I was perplexed to read blog after blog after blog that said the camera's "official" release date was March 31.

Well, I went to Amazon to check on the availability of a pre-order and, lo and behold, the release date is listed as March 31.

Since when did going to Amazon for a release date constitute research instead of going to the source and - gasp - reading an entire news release?

Facebook is going public. I won't be buying into it. Right or wrong, I simply don't buy into the Facebook sensibility.

Linking Whitney's death between old school news reporting, new media, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and a Canon camera might not make sense to some people. It does to me. And, hey, I call this, my version of a "blog," The Mattopia Blahg for a reason.

And I'm not even going to go into CNN's approach of continuously looping its overblown coverage by Don Lemon and Piers Morgan. I'm certainly not going to argue that old media is without fault.

Update: As of Feb. 16, Beach Camera, a very reputable store I've shopped at before, has the G1 X in stock. Oddly enough, that's through Amazon. Beach's own Web site still shows it as a pre-order. And Amazon still shows a March 31 date. For the record, the camera is now up for pre-order on Canon's own site. Release date: Feb. 21.

---

Newer   |   Older