Slashdot Log In
Wired Amends Stories With Fabricated Quotes
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue May 10, 2005 01:40 PM
from the not-a-good-day-for-online-news dept.
from the not-a-good-day-for-online-news dept.
SiliconEntity writes "Wired Online has been forced to correct dozens of stories in the wake of disclosures that reporter Michelle Delio may have fabricated quotes. Wired has published over 700 stories by Delio since 2000, and in a review of 160 of the most recent ones, 24 were found to have quotes that could not be confirmed. Several of the Wired stories being questioned were discussed on Slashdot, including Spyware on My Machine? So What?, Minniapple's Mini Radio Stations, The Masters of Memory Lane, and probably many more. Wired is not the only one to get burned; MIT Technology Review and InfoWorld have also had to retract or alter stories written by Delio." Update: 05/10 19:20 GMT by Z : Altered to clarify Wired's actions.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
...and I quote! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:...and I quote! (Score:5, Funny)
care to confirm that quote?
Parent
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Any relation to Maureen O'Gara?
Not likely. Did you see the picture of Maureen? I don't think that procreation happens in that family very often.
Parent
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Never underestimate the power of alcohol.
Parent
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Whew! (Score:4, Funny)
Good job, Zonk! Can you post some Roland Pippqupqpqpqpaiillellepzaille today, please?
Re:Whew! (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot, and other similar sites, are a little different because the whole point is to foster discussion. if someone invents a quote on the spot, or chooses a headline that doesn't fit the story, or whatever there are plenty of people that are willing to point that out. That's the point of Slashdot, it's more of a forum for discussion, than a news source (although once you get enough comments it becomes easy to do a little research and make your own informed decisions).
Michelle, on the other hand, was supposed to be reporting "news." It's often just as biased, but it's supposed to at least be verifiable. You might not agree with the conclusion, but not the facts that were presented. Heck, even on Slashdot the editors don't just make stuff up so that it fits their story.
Parent
Re:Whew! (Score:5, Funny)
Heck, even on Slashdot the editors don't just make stuff up so that it fits their story.
From the Slashdot headline,
"Wired Online Retracts Stories"
From the flippin' article,
Wired News is not retracting any of these stories.
Parent
Re:Whew! (Score:5, Funny)
Now, why would Wired add in their own fabricated quotes after all of this trouble with Delio?
Parent
Re:Whew! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Whew! (Score:4, Funny)
Slashdot will NEVER retract its turgid, probing appendage of inquiry!
Parent
Re:Whew! (Score:5, Funny)
No, they'll just post it again later today or tomarrow.
Parent
New job (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New job (Score:5, Funny)
If you see a Michel LeDelio quoted on a poster, remember you heard it here first.
Parent
Re:New job (Score:5, Informative)
What has apparently happened is an accountability problem. She's taken too much second-hand information and reported it as first hand in a double handful of articles. A journalism prof and several grad students were able to confirm the vast majority of her quotes and attributions.
This amounts to sloppiness, carelessness and unprofesionalism rather than blatant deception or malicious intent.
It'll probably still end her writing career, however.
Parent
Re:New job (Score:4, Funny)
Unless you are a VP or higher.
Parent
Pic (Score:3, Funny)
Why can't we have hottie tech reporters, I say? At least when they go crooked we could cut them some slack because they look good =)
Re:Pic (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Pic (Score:5, Funny)
Rub lipstick on a herring, and feed it to the seal. What's really tough it getting it to rest its chin on its flipper.
Parent
Re:Pic (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
That'll teach them... (Score:3, Funny)
Shattered Glass (Score:3, Insightful)
Hayden Christiansen does a great job in it, and it's a great movie (and true
story/book too..)
Random audits (Score:5, Insightful)
Better option! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Random audits (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Who Should Retract What? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who Should Retract What? (Score:5, Informative)
It's impossible (or at least very difficult) to prove a negative. You would literally have to go through the entire population of the planet to prove that these people didn't exist, and check death records over the past several years for every country on earth. If she's quoting someone, and her answer when somebody asks about them is "well, they were a friend of a friend, I don't know where they're from" (as she did say about several of these people), that's almost impossible to disprove.
It would be naive, though, to think that she didn't make these people up. There's a disturbing pattern here; this is not a few isolated cases, and it's interesting that she can provide contact info for some sources easily but cannot verify others at all (including some she supposedly contacted the very week this investigation was going on). If you read through the actual report, she did, for example, provide a source list for everyone but the sources that couldn't be found by others, and the few bits of info she did provide for these sources turned out to be fake (of course, she made up some new excuses for why the email addresses and phone numbers didn't work). So she was actively trying to cover for herself; this was not all just a big coincidence.
(As a side note, I have read entire articles on Wired that turned out to be fake for one reason or another, the most obvious examples being the "Toothing" article and the article about iPods on the Microsoft campus [which was filled with quotes from anonymous sources and was refuted pretty strongly by Microsoft employees after it ran]. Wired Online has some serious credibility problems right now, and the only reason nobody seems to much care is that the expectations of them seem to be so low to begin with.)
I say, if you're a news organization and you can't verify the source of a quote, you treat it as a fake source and you in turn treat the entire article as suspect. These articles should all be pulled and her career should be over. She should get no "second" chance - her second chance was the first article she wrote after her first made-up source. She continued to make up sources for subsequent articles, so she has more than used up her "second" chances if you ask me.
Parent
Trusting the media (Score:4, Insightful)
I think I'll just stick to Groklaw and forget the rest of the press.
Re:Trusting the media (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Trusting the media (Score:4, Funny)
So... are you basing that unsubstantiated allegation on the anecdotal evidence of this one event, or would you care to actually back up such an irresponsible, inflammatory accusation with some facts?
Maybe you're right, though... I loved Groklaw's coverage of the Iraq war, the election, the Tsunami, North Korean nukes, and all those other things that actually matter.
GodDAMN, I'm in a snarky mood today!
Parent
Re:Trusting the media (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on, seriously--give me a little credit, huh? I know what Wired magazine is, and all that.
My problem with the GGP post is that it's too easy to assume that bad behavior is pandemic and out-of-control, because that's the only time you notice it. Think about how many tens of thousands of professional journalists are writing for how many tens of publications, just in the USA, right now.
How in the hell does one guy's bad behavior translate into "It seems we just can't trust most of the mainstream media today." Even if you throw in Jason Blair of NYT fame, Dan Rather, and another dozen people who made stuff up or failed some kind of ethical standard, you're still talking about A DROP IN THE BUCKET compared to the number out there who seem to be doing their jobs properly!
Do you work in IT? Because the GGP's statement, and yours, are kind of like people reading about Kevin Mitnick of the Lowes CC thieves and saying "You just can't trust most of these computer people today, they don't seem to have any ethical standards with all this hacking going on." It's an attack on the integrity of a lot of people who haven't done anything wrong.
Seriously, it's an intellectually lazy statement that accuses an entire profession of corruption. That's a shitty thing to say.
Parent
Re:Trusting the media (Score:4, Insightful)
Guess what? You CAN'T trust computer people in general because of the actions of hackers and others. This is why IT security exists. A few bad computer people can do enormous damage. In the same way, a few bad journalists here and there can have a huge impact. Think about this: if someone publishes complete fabrications and never gets caught, those fabrications stand as published truths which other journalists will cite, which could then themselves be cited later, etc.
Not implicitly trusting the mainstream media is something like having a firewall in place. Most people out there aren't trying to hack your computer, but the possibility for such is great if you're not protected. Similarly, there are enough lazy, stupid, and/or malicious people out there that you should remember to keep a critical eye open with whatever you're reading.
Parent
Re:Trusting the media (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I'm sorry you still have to think. And yes, it helps to be a critical thinker. Not only are the sources of information occasionally biased and sometimes fictional, they sometimes are even unintentionally wrong.
Right, because we know that every student utilizes what they learn in school. Revoke their charters to issue degrees!
I know, let's blame the "pressure" of the market to bring "quality" stories to the table. It's the publishers' faults. Boycott!
Hey, how about we actually call it what it is: a reporter who made shit up for ego, money, to have more time to play WoW, or whatever. Is it so hard for us to take responsibility these days that we can't even blame an individual for doing something fundamentally wrong?
Parent
Not to worry (Score:5, Interesting)
"I swear I am not making this up" -- Dave Barry
Personally, I don't talk to reporters anymore. For years I have been disgusted by "fill-in-the-blanks-with-whatever-sounds-good" journalists.
As a teenager I was featured in the local town paper with my father's OSI (that's Ohio Scientific) computer, which I was learning to program in the mid 70's. I was aghast to read the article, with my face prominently displayed above it at the dining room table near the computer, filled in with all sorts of wild claims. Seemed to me that reality wasn't exciting enough for the reporter so she threw in some crap about my teenage brother writing for Scientific American (she screwed up the name Ohio Scientific, which my brother had written a program for.)
Year's later I'd be misquoted, embarrassingly so, during the outsourcing of my department. A decidedly pro-labor, and damn whatever he said, article put words in my mouth and I'll never forgive that paper for that. The next time they called I hung up. I don't talk to reporters anymore.
Record EVERYTHING! (Score:5, Informative)
(I thought of this myself, but I have later found it verified in information pamphlets on dealing with the media.)
n+1'th rule: Everything is on the record. Even if the camera appears to be turned off, the tally (the red blinking light) isn't on or whatever.
My own rule: Bloggers are your best friend if a journalist c**** on you. "Crockumentary" filmmaking and reporting, while still financially viable, isn't as damaging to the "public record" as it used to be. The people who want to believe the a**-journalist will still do it, but other people will know better.
Parent
Just the opposite for me (Score:5, Funny)
I got a call one night from a local TV station asking if I would mind asking some questions. Sure, might as well have my opinion count in some poll. So they proceed to ask questions about politics in Serbia. I was pretty proud I could give informed answers. But towards the end, when I prefaced an answer with "Well, I'm not an expert, but.." the woman said, "Wait, aren't you _____ the international relations expert?" I said "No, I'm _____ the engineer." Turns out I was being mistakenly interviewed because the real expert and I had the same name.
I still think I had good answers.
Parent
Sloppy Editorial Oversight (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a hand wringing exercise by the American press. Readership has and will continue to fall off in favor of other news outlets, robbing the public of the detail that is required to make informed political decisions.
Great news for the rabid, camera-mugging politicians.
That is stange (Score:5, Interesting)
Strange...
Ted Tschopp
Seems valid to me, at least somewhat... (Score:5, Funny)
What I found funny about the quotes given by "Carmella" is that they were mirrored on several other sites with the citation leading back to the Wired article.
From this [wired.com] article entitled "Spyware on My Machine? So What?":
I had a good idea what the Marketscore software does, though I didn't read the entire user agreement," said 19-year-old New York University student Keith Caron. "In general when any application asks to install another application, I assume the other application is spyware. But you have to support spyware if you're going to have free file-sharing applications. Fair's fair.
I had a good idea what Delio was doing when she wrote these articles, though I didn't read the entire thing," said 26-year-old Slashdotter Bill Roehl. "In general when any story is posted to the main page, I assume it's full of worthless bullshit that no one cares about. But you have to support Slashdot if you're going to be a Slashbotter. Fair's fair in addiction."
I know that I was asked many times to answer simple questions on campus. I usually would give some valid reply and list a fake name and address. They can have my thoughts but why would I ever give them my personal information.
"Keith" seems like a typical college student from 2004, IMHO, most of them don't give a shit as long as they can get their music free and fast.
Tempest in a teapot (Score:5, Informative)
If you RTFA, you'll learn that of 700 articles, only about 24 had citation issues, and of those, only FOUR were articles that relied on unconfirmed quotes. The woman didn't cite her sources correctly, that's all this is.
Not quite (Score:5, Informative)
I was the editor of the "Enterprise Blogs and Wikis" story for InfoWorld that Penenberg talks about in his report and I can confirm that Ms. Delio similarly did not respond to requests that she identify the partial sources she cited in that article. Other editors at InfoWorld followed up on sources in other stories independently and were unable to confirm those sources.
Tempest in a teapot? Maybe. To tell the truth, if there were fabricated quotes in the articles Ms. Delio wrote for me, I really don't think they did a whole lot of damage to the stories themselves. Barring the unconfirmed sources I mentioned, I do believe that her articles were meant to be factual stories written in good faith. That's why InfoWorld, like Wired, has not actually retracted any of Ms. Delio's stories; in some cases we have excised certain portions of those stories from the online versions, but all of the stories are still available (though it's only about four stories total for us, if I remember right).
That's kind of the shame of this whole thing, too. It doesn't give me any joy to see Ms. Delio dragged out in front of the court of public opinion for what may have been nothing more than a pattern of very poor judgment. But anytime a writer may have fabricated something in an otherwise ostensibly factual story, that's the kind of tempest in a teapot you want your media sources to jump all over. You just can't let it slide.
InfoWorld won't be able to use Ms. Delio's services anymore, but for myself I wish her the best of luck and hope she can move on from this episode in a way that is satisfying for her both personally and professionally. (Note that these statements are my own and do not represent the official opinion of InfoWorld magazine or its parent company, IDG.)
Parent
What the Delio! :-) (Score:5, Funny)
"It's lies! Lies I tell you!" said Ms. Delio, shaking her fist at a press conference held the women's rest room at an abandone Gulf Oil station off the New Jersey Turnpike. "Wait... I mean, the claims that I told lies are lies, you see? My words were unvarnished truth! The Walker Art Museum really did transform into a giant Autobot and prance around the area. There were, like BILLIONS of witnesses!"
"She's (sniff) a troubled (sniff) girl," said and shaky, sweaty Rebekah Chemtrayle who is some sort of senior something at Wired that no one is quite able to define. "(Sniff) she has had some traumatic (sniff) experiences (sniff) and some (sniff) childhood demons (sniff) that causes her to (sniff) do really unsound things (sniff) like write false (sniff) stories, wear poly(sniff)ester and vote (sniff) Republican... fuck, I need a fix. How much would youy (sniff) pay me for (sniff) a BBBJ?"
"They won't catch me!" cried Ms. Delio in a phone interview from what she claimed was her Fortress Of Solitude in Flat Rock, Michigan deep beneath the Ford Mustang plant. "I'll unleash my legions of lesbian ninja kittens on tham all, and I, yes *I* shall have the last laugh. Here it goes. Hahahahahahaaa!"
Huffington post? (Score:5, Funny)
Now that the Huffington Post [huffingtonpost.com] is online, perhaps Hilary Rosen [slashdot.org] should be joined by over there with Maureen O'Gara [slashdot.org], Mary Mapes and Michelle Delio. Or would that lead to the birth of a black hole on the internet?
Perhaps they could branch off to create their own blog "Fem-Hacks", the gender-correct alternative to "Stud-Hacks" of Jeff Gannon/Guckert, Jyason Blair and Dan Rather fame? I think the market potential would be huge!
Holy Prolific Journalism Batman! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's more than a story every three days, including weekends, for over 5 years. And that's just for Wired - it doesn't include articles written for other publications!
Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but it seems there should have been the suspicion that someone who can discover, investigate and report on a newsworthy phenomenon every 2.5 days for 5 years straight might be cutting corners somewhere.
Er, so what again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on the article, I'm not completely sure how much I should care. It's completely possible that the quotes were fabricated, as it were, from whole cloth. It's equally possible that the reporter in question is just lazy about notetaking or maintaining contact information. For that matter, failing to keep records in hard copy followed by a system crash could create a loss of contact information.
Should the reporter have been more careful? Sure. But "could not confirm" is not always the same as "invented," especially when we're talking about the older stories.
When stuff like this happens, I just have to wonder if it's like when Congress holds emergency sessions over issues of minimal national import but maximum political visibility. Think about it--if you throw out relatively unimportant stories from time to time to show that you're "doing your best" to make the news honest and thorough and verifiable, who would think to ask about more insidious methods of information tampering?
After all, a news source that verifies quotes even when they are immaterial to a story would never massage the rhetoric of some other piece to purvey a slanted perspective, right? Right?
[shrugs] Okay, ramble done. Whether this reporter is lying or just lazy, obviously there are problems needing to be addressed. I just can't shake the feeling that this rates pretty low on the scale of important journalistic developments.
anagram (Score:5, Funny)
My biggest complaint with reporters... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bruce
other instances of journalistic fraud (Score:5, Informative)
Book: Hard News : The Scandals at The New York Times and Their Meaning for American Media, by Seth Mnookin [amazon.com]
Beyond the obvious fraud commited by Jayson Blair, Mnookin delves into what was wrong in the NYT newsroom and managerial organization that allowed Blair to get away with it. In short: an imperious Howell Raines alienated his subordinate editors and the communications process broken down, allowing a "charismatic crook" to slip past the checks and balances that normally would catch him.
Movie: Shattered Glass, starring *cough* Hayden Christensen [imdb.com] ...
At the New Republic, Stephen Glass was able to subvert their fact checking process -- starting with occasionally making up quotes, he ended up fabricating entire stories out of whole cloth. The Forbes Digital investigation [forbes.com] that finally brought him down will likely be interesting to readers here
I'm purposely not reading the comments on this thread, because the naivety exhibited will certainly make my head spin, and I need to get back to work. In short, just like the typical Slashdot reader knows a hell of a lot more about the subtleties of IT than a journalist, the journalism professional knows a hell of a lot more about the subtleties of journalism ethics than 99% of Slashdot readers.
And above all, spend a little time reading "hard" journalism once in while (even online versions of the old media, like NYT, WP, etc.) and get a feel for what rigorous journalism looks like. Blogs have their own set of problems that you may be blind to if you never read "real" reporting ...
Fabricated quotes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps we need to see a headline on some other "news" site entitled "Slashdot Headline About Unconfirmable Quotes Cannot Be Confirmed".