It's not the OP's fault, it's lack of integrity in the press.
You start by propagating a rumor on some insignificant source like Secret, then a blogger picks it up. The blogger gets noticed by people on Twitter, who catch the attention of some small news source. Bigger newspapers notice that the story is blossoming in the lower echelons and they pick it up. Suddenly, something which carries zero truth has become fact in a cascade of increasing credibility.
This is the problem with modern online media. When more clicks mean more money, the incentives will favor rumors and lies. And this doesn't only happen by accident, as in the OP's case, but it's done over and over again by media manipulators who have realized that it's a bug in the system that's easily abused for fun and profit.
>>> but it's done over and over again by media manipulators who have realized that it's a bug in the system that's easily abused for fun and profit.
To me, this is the most interesting part. You'd think in a media environment such as today, you'd think people would take more time when vetting stories like these, instead its the exact opposite. People are constantly jumping on and promoting stories without a hint of journalistic integrity.
90% of what I read now, I take with a grain of salt. You just can't trust anybody any more.
> 90% of what I read now, I take with a grain of salt. You just can't trust anybody any more.
But you (the ubiquitous you) still click and occasionally share to others who will click. Thats the only part that really matters to the decision makers.
I enjoy reading macRUMORS.com. The name says it all, it's interesting to see what people think will happen but I don't rely on anything I see on the site. I would hope this is how all of their readers act.
I think this highlights something I've thought about recently.
I've realized reading the "news" is a skill. Particularly, HN. As a reader, you need to be able to quickly differentiate what matters and what doesn't; what's bias and what's not, what has actual substance and what doesn't; and what the stories mean in the grand scheme. Also, and most importantly, you have to be able to move on.
It's so easy to get distracted and sucked into the k-hole of news. News should educate and inform your worldview. But remember there's plenty of unsubstantiated ruminations and pointless, heavily-biased garbage out there.
Modern civilization is extremely complex; so much so that even seemingly cut-and-dry news stories are simply beyond full comprehension and understanding of what actually is going on.
My reading strategy for news is to allow a particular story to be substantiated by more than a few known trusted sources, but, again, to remember that it's just a distant narrative and to move on.
The Ukraine situation is a great example. I'm not from the Ukraine and don't know many Ukrainians so for me it's just another news story. It brings up interesting geopolitical, human rights and economic problems but for me it's still a distant narrative. I have friends who are in the same position as me, but seem to believe it's the beginning of WWIII; again, flying down the news k-hole.
Or the ferry disaster in South Korea. Or the Malaysian flight disaster. All sad but intriguing(they both raise questions such as: how could these happen? why did the leadership respond they way they did?), but one can only speculate on the implications what these stories mean beyond them being tragedies.
People will write speculations about these events; I can't let someone's speculation or assumptions to run wild within my mind because it's just not news. Again, it's important to differentiate real news from everything else.
When the source is not an authority, when nothing the source says is verifiable, and when you have a duty to perform due diligence in regards to what you report to your customers as fact? Yes, it's their fault.
Umm...yes? Especially in journalism. This isn't about morality, it's about doing one's job and performing due diligence before believing and propagating a freaking anonymous social media comment as fact. If you are reporting things to people through a channel that is supposed to contain accurate and reliable information, it is up to you to uphold that standard, not the source you are drawing from.
Integrity could also earn money. Most people would rather buy from a truthful and transparent organization than a shady one. The market often punishes liars over the long term.
You start by propagating a rumor on some insignificant source like Secret, then a blogger picks it up. The blogger gets noticed by people on Twitter, who catch the attention of some small news source. Bigger newspapers notice that the story is blossoming in the lower echelons and they pick it up. Suddenly, something which carries zero truth has become fact in a cascade of increasing credibility.
This is the problem with modern online media. When more clicks mean more money, the incentives will favor rumors and lies. And this doesn't only happen by accident, as in the OP's case, but it's done over and over again by media manipulators who have realized that it's a bug in the system that's easily abused for fun and profit.