By Ava Dinges
There is no doubt that User Generated Content (UGC) websites like Wikipedia and YouTube have revolutionized the way people get their news and information. But since its creation, the mass media has warned about the accuracy of this “new” media. Unlike established news websites, like CNN.com or ABC.com, user-generated websites do not have to follow strict content guidelines. Anything can become breaking news, without anyone verifying whether it’s true or not. Throughout their existence, UGC websites have been criticized for spreading rumors.
And it seems that once again, UGC websites may be living up to their reputation.
Yesterday morning on the popular CGM website Digg, someone posted a blog titled: "Google, Microsoft Said to Be Preparing Bids for Digg".
Quite obvious from its name, the blog was about the possibility of Digg being sold to either Google or Microsoft. The article’s only source was an “unnamed source” (curse words to any trained journalist's ears), but the author reassured his readers by saying that the source was “very close to the deal”.
Within hours, the post made it on Digg’s most popular list and over 900 other Digg users commented on the page.
Some users were against the sale. Stone420 commented: “Unless you want to retire.
DONT DO IT.”
Others endorsed it. “This is a big cash-in for the digg founders, who only received $11.3M from investors...”, wrote abstractwater.
Some even gave their opinion on who’s bid digg.com should accept. User macwisdom wrote, “Stay above corporate influence ...Well as much as you can.... If you got to sell go with google.”
But buried in the midst of the whole debate, were comments suggesting that there may not even be a sale at all. Digg user canewediggit wrote: “not sure if I’m buying this story”, listing Microsoft’s hatred for the Digg.com website and Google’s recent financial losses as major reasons.
The original post created such a stir that Digg CEO Jay Adelson felt obliged to post a rebuttal of his own. In his post, titled "Rumors and Speculation", Adelson denounced that any sort of bidding war was taking place, marking the original post as “completely inaccurate.”
Yet even after being confirmed as a rumor, comments continued to be made about the sale. User prleet writes, “DONT SELL OUT, everyone use caps lock.”
Talk about a perfect example of the idiom "One Bad Apple". Chalk that up to the list of black marks on the blogging reputation.
Comments (2)
Rumors float through newspapers all the time. Rumors about corporate buyouts and speculation about "What if Microsoft and Apple fused into a MegaZord Company" make up substantive portions of the business section of pretty much every major news outlet.
I'm just not seeing how this is different.
Posted by Sam L | March 24, 2008 12:39 AM
Posted on March 24, 2008 00:39
I understand your argument, but I do think that the rumors spread within new media, like on blogs, are much different. Most people aren't willing to jeopardize their newspaper job because they published inaccurate information. I would agree that occasionally rumors slip through on old forms of media, but that usually results in someone's job being put on the line. There doesn't seem to be any real consequences to online bloggers who falsify information. Besides, new media can spread information much faster than old media can, increasing the chances of false information to be spread before anyone has the chance to refute it.
Most articles in newspapers that make speculations clearly indentify their content as just speculation, in order to protect themselves. Though some bloggers may do the same, there is no rule saying they have to.
Posted by Ava Dinges | April 1, 2008 11:44 PM
Posted on April 1, 2008 23:44