CNN explains the role of iReport in Rick Astley hoax
In an earlier post Tuesday that raised questions about gatekeeping in the world of new media, I said I was trying to get an explanation from CNN of its role in the Rick-Astley-is-dead hoax Monday night.
The key point to understand in the explanation from CNN spokeswoman Jennifer Martin is that information posted on iReport.com only is carried on such outlets as CNN and cnn.com after it is vetted. That means gatekeepers and filters have been applied to anything that appears on the cable news channel CNN or the cnn.com online site -- but not on iReport. com.
That's a big difference, as CNN is relying on what it calls the iReport "community" to police iReport.com. Once something on iReport.com is vetted and found suitable for CNN or cnn.com, it then carries the stamp, "On CNN," according to Martin. The Astley material did not make it onto any of the CNN platforms.
Here is what Martin had to say, and, again, the distinction between cnn.com and iReport.com is key. As to her final point about how the iReport community functioned as its own watchdog in this case, I have to say I do not trust any online community to ultimately police itself. I still want professional journalists serving as filters.
Clearly the self-policing did not work in time to keep iReport from being part of the problem for about two hours (before the phony post was taken down in the early stages of the Astley hoax):
The iReport.com community worked exactly the way it was supposed to - a registered user uploaded a submission; and the community began commenting and questioning the authenticity of the report. Based on the community flagging, we explored the story further. Once we confirmed the submission to be false - and due to the nature of the erroneous report - the content was removed from the site in accordance with the community guidelines. Per our terms of service we disabled the user's account, which incidentally was created less than 24 hours before posting the false submission.
For CNN, this situation simply underscores the value of verifying the authenticity of iReports before we use them in CNN branded reporting. It also underscores how effective the iReport.com community is in policing itself.
Comments
If that's iReports working "exactly the way it's supposed to" then we are in for media anarchy.
David, I think you're a little generous in accepting CNN's efforts to divorce iReports from their brand. The two are clearly linked.
It would be like having a gossip supplement in the Sun where anything goes, and trying to claim that different standards apply to the supplement so long as only the verifiable rumours make it into the main news section.
Posted by: Gary Finnegan | July 1, 2009 3:58 AM
Yikes, sounds like a problem in mission control. It sounds like a breakdown in the communications verifying system. Aren't most problems caused by a lack of communication. ireport community must not have done their job that time.
Posted by: Sherry T. | July 1, 2009 8:44 AM
Are there verifiable rumours in gossip? Those would still need to be cleared by the people that the gossip is about and then it would not be gossip anymore so it would go in a different column. Oh well, raining in Ohio today, so I guess swimming in Julie's pool is out - sorry Julie.
Posted by: Sherry T. | July 1, 2009 9:04 AM
http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2008/10/31/the-psychology-of-rumors-and-urban-legends/ This is pretty good advice for anyone. Have a nice day.
Posted by: Sherry T. | July 1, 2009 9:34 AM
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060731_rumor_mill.html Okay, this is even better, this is what I wanted to say, but this psychologist said it better. Rumors and gossip are not necessarily the same thing. Verified rumors can then go into the column of news. Okay- no pool, Ice Age in 3-D prevailed. Since it is an indoor activity. We'll see how that goes.
Posted by: Sherry T. | July 1, 2009 10:25 AM
Wait. False information was on a user-generated content website for a couple hours? Is that the story? Hold the frakin' presses.
If it isn't, it should be. Unless you're happy with being misinformed by media. Z
Posted by: Church | July 1, 2009 12:09 PM
User generated content is the reason why I find myself watching less of CNN. If I want unfiltered content I can find it all over the internet. When I watch any news program I want it to be a presentation of facts that someone has applied journalistic standards to before presenting it as fact.
Posted by: Dave | July 5, 2009 9:35 PM