_An Online Hoax Reminds Journalists to Do Their Duty
__By Herbert Lowe, Diederich College of Communication, Marquette University
Journal of Mass Media Ethics: Exploring Questions of Media Morality
Volume 27, Issue 1, 2012, pages 62-64
An editor taught me early in my journalism career to be wary of letting someone else's mistake become my own. The AptiQuant hoax offers educators and editors plenty of teachable moments related to accuracy, credibility, fairness, and trustworthiness.
An ethical analysis reveals that the hoax reverberates because so much of what could go wrong in the Digital Age did in this case: Professional and citizen journalists alike failed to check out the story thoroughly enough for it stand up to scrutiny later. Traditional media neglected to put their brands ahead of simply having the story. Social media, specifically the practice of tweeting and retweeting, enabled these mistakes to be compounded across the Web. Because the damage was so broad, it became impossible for every culprit to correct it.
Certainly, hoaxers only succeed when media fail to do their duty. The best of journalism involves seasoned and dedicated practitioners pursuing virtue and social improvement more so than personal success and acclaim. Regrettably, achieving success with little concern for how it is gained seems to matter more to those who seek credit for reporting it first, even if turns out later to be incomplete or, worse, incorrect.
Professionally speaking, it is hard to imagine the AptiQuant hoax (Carmody, 2011) fooling so many. Let us say my assignment editor hands me a news release (AptiQuant, 2011) promoting a research study that has found a substantial relationship between our intelligence and our Web browsing choice. The BBC, CNN, Forbes, and technology Web sites and bloggers aplenty have already went with the story, the editor tells me, so write 300 words and get something on our organization's Web site fast. While cursing the slow news day—if not, privately, the editor—for the insignificant assignment, I read the news release to learn more about the study and to determine whom to call for reaction. It concludes that those using the Opera browser are smarter, while those with early versions of Internet Explorer are dumber. What's this Opera browser? I'm pretty smart—why haven't I heard about this? And, really, are people still using IE 6? Okay, the story is not about me or my sense of who has or has not mastered technology. The news release says 100,000 people volunteered to take this IQ test. That's as large a sampling as I have encountered. How much money did it cost the researchers? How long did it take to do this study? AptiQuant? Who and where is this organization? Let me talk to the head researcher?
So many basic journalistic questions should have led someone to seek to actually interview someone from AptiQuant, especially when the company posted another release saying its president had received hate mail from Internet Explorer users threatening legal action.
Instead, those reporting the story failed to abide by an ethical guidepost that J. D. Lasica (2002) contends must always remain: “What best serves the interests of the reader and the public while remaining fair to those named in the story?” A breakdown happened in this case presumably because the study's purported 100,000 subjects were anonymous. Consequently, the story turned out to be unfair to all IE users everywhere, no matter the version they used.
Let us not forget that while Canadian-based Internet entrepreneur Tarandeep Gill has apologized for the hoax, Central Test, a European online psychometric test publisher mistakenly associated with the matter, may sue him for damaging its image (Evans, 2011). Media companies and bloggers are wise to consider their own legal standing for such damage.
The blogosphere and social media make it possible for anyone to harm someone else's reputation. In the perpetual 24-hour news cycle, news is overshadowed by information, and information is overshadowed by rumors and innuendo. Many bloggers and other citizen journalists react to news first reported elsewhere. Every minute of the day, someone is sharing a story via Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube. Ethically, it is always more important to get the story right than merely publishing or airing it first. Negligence remains negligence. Do original, best reporting. Yet so many journalists needlessly put themselves and their organizations at risk.
A greater concern is that media giants helped perpetuate the hoax. CNN calls itself the “most trusted name in news.” So when the news agency ran with a story that made fun of IE users, bloggers across the globe reasonably surmised it was true. Indeed, with so many established media also publishing it, no wonder so many others hyperlinked to it.
Which brings us to tweeting and retweeting. These days, major news organizations encourage their Web site visitors to pass along content via social media as a matter of course. However, too many people tweet or retweet content reported elsewhere without checking it out first. Journalists who do so are unwise and unethical. Stating on your Twitter bio that retweets do not imply endorsement is weak. Do not push it along if you will not stand by it.
Stephen J.A. Ward, of the University of Wisconsin's Center for Journalism Ethics, is right in stating that “a media that thrives on speed and ‘sharing’ creates the potential for great harm,” and the industry needs guidelines that set reasonable limits on personal commentary (Ward, 2010). For sure, a beat reporter must not expose personal bias that impedes on objective reporting later. Limiting retweeting beyond that, I believe, becomes more problematic than useful.
Finally, because hoaxes are bound to happen again, how should such mistakes be corrected? Robert Hernandez, a respected Web journalist and journalism educator, shared that he asked those who retweeted his errant AptiQuant retweet to spread the word (Hernandez, 2011). That is a great teachable moment for professional, citizen, and student journalists everywhere as we all continue to strive for accuracy, credibility, fairness, and trustworthiness in the Digital Age.
REFERENCES
1. AptiQuant Psychometric Consulting Co. July 26 2011. Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and browser usage: Measuring the effects of cognitive ability on the choice of Web browser. July 26, Retrieved from http://www.AptiQuant.com/downloads/IQ-Browser-AptiQuant-2011.pdf
2. Carmody, T. August 3 2011. ‘Internet Explorer users have lower IQs’ study is a hoax: Here are some of the red flags August 3, Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/08/internet-explorer-users-have-lower-iqs-study-is-a-hoax-here-are-some-of-the-red-flags/Wired.com.
3. Evans, S. 2011. Updated: ‘IE users are dumb.’ Hoaxer says sorry. Computer Business Review, August 4 Retrieved from http://www.ojr.org/ojr/ethics/1017782140.php
4. Hernandez, R. 2011. What's your role in correcting a retweeted hoax?. Web Journalist Blog., August 3 Retrieved from http://blog.webjournalist.org/tag/corrections/
5. Lasica, J. D. 2002. A scorecard for net news ethics. Online Journalism Review, April 2 Retrieved from http://www.ojr.org/ojr/ethics/1017782140.php
6. Ward, S. J. A. 2010. Digital media ethics. Center for Journalism Ethics, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison.. Retrieved from http://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/resources/digital-media-ethics/
Journal of Mass Media Ethics: Exploring Questions of Media Morality
Volume 27, Issue 1, 2012, pages 62-64
An editor taught me early in my journalism career to be wary of letting someone else's mistake become my own. The AptiQuant hoax offers educators and editors plenty of teachable moments related to accuracy, credibility, fairness, and trustworthiness.
An ethical analysis reveals that the hoax reverberates because so much of what could go wrong in the Digital Age did in this case: Professional and citizen journalists alike failed to check out the story thoroughly enough for it stand up to scrutiny later. Traditional media neglected to put their brands ahead of simply having the story. Social media, specifically the practice of tweeting and retweeting, enabled these mistakes to be compounded across the Web. Because the damage was so broad, it became impossible for every culprit to correct it.
Certainly, hoaxers only succeed when media fail to do their duty. The best of journalism involves seasoned and dedicated practitioners pursuing virtue and social improvement more so than personal success and acclaim. Regrettably, achieving success with little concern for how it is gained seems to matter more to those who seek credit for reporting it first, even if turns out later to be incomplete or, worse, incorrect.
Professionally speaking, it is hard to imagine the AptiQuant hoax (Carmody, 2011) fooling so many. Let us say my assignment editor hands me a news release (AptiQuant, 2011) promoting a research study that has found a substantial relationship between our intelligence and our Web browsing choice. The BBC, CNN, Forbes, and technology Web sites and bloggers aplenty have already went with the story, the editor tells me, so write 300 words and get something on our organization's Web site fast. While cursing the slow news day—if not, privately, the editor—for the insignificant assignment, I read the news release to learn more about the study and to determine whom to call for reaction. It concludes that those using the Opera browser are smarter, while those with early versions of Internet Explorer are dumber. What's this Opera browser? I'm pretty smart—why haven't I heard about this? And, really, are people still using IE 6? Okay, the story is not about me or my sense of who has or has not mastered technology. The news release says 100,000 people volunteered to take this IQ test. That's as large a sampling as I have encountered. How much money did it cost the researchers? How long did it take to do this study? AptiQuant? Who and where is this organization? Let me talk to the head researcher?
So many basic journalistic questions should have led someone to seek to actually interview someone from AptiQuant, especially when the company posted another release saying its president had received hate mail from Internet Explorer users threatening legal action.
Instead, those reporting the story failed to abide by an ethical guidepost that J. D. Lasica (2002) contends must always remain: “What best serves the interests of the reader and the public while remaining fair to those named in the story?” A breakdown happened in this case presumably because the study's purported 100,000 subjects were anonymous. Consequently, the story turned out to be unfair to all IE users everywhere, no matter the version they used.
Let us not forget that while Canadian-based Internet entrepreneur Tarandeep Gill has apologized for the hoax, Central Test, a European online psychometric test publisher mistakenly associated with the matter, may sue him for damaging its image (Evans, 2011). Media companies and bloggers are wise to consider their own legal standing for such damage.
The blogosphere and social media make it possible for anyone to harm someone else's reputation. In the perpetual 24-hour news cycle, news is overshadowed by information, and information is overshadowed by rumors and innuendo. Many bloggers and other citizen journalists react to news first reported elsewhere. Every minute of the day, someone is sharing a story via Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube. Ethically, it is always more important to get the story right than merely publishing or airing it first. Negligence remains negligence. Do original, best reporting. Yet so many journalists needlessly put themselves and their organizations at risk.
A greater concern is that media giants helped perpetuate the hoax. CNN calls itself the “most trusted name in news.” So when the news agency ran with a story that made fun of IE users, bloggers across the globe reasonably surmised it was true. Indeed, with so many established media also publishing it, no wonder so many others hyperlinked to it.
Which brings us to tweeting and retweeting. These days, major news organizations encourage their Web site visitors to pass along content via social media as a matter of course. However, too many people tweet or retweet content reported elsewhere without checking it out first. Journalists who do so are unwise and unethical. Stating on your Twitter bio that retweets do not imply endorsement is weak. Do not push it along if you will not stand by it.
Stephen J.A. Ward, of the University of Wisconsin's Center for Journalism Ethics, is right in stating that “a media that thrives on speed and ‘sharing’ creates the potential for great harm,” and the industry needs guidelines that set reasonable limits on personal commentary (Ward, 2010). For sure, a beat reporter must not expose personal bias that impedes on objective reporting later. Limiting retweeting beyond that, I believe, becomes more problematic than useful.
Finally, because hoaxes are bound to happen again, how should such mistakes be corrected? Robert Hernandez, a respected Web journalist and journalism educator, shared that he asked those who retweeted his errant AptiQuant retweet to spread the word (Hernandez, 2011). That is a great teachable moment for professional, citizen, and student journalists everywhere as we all continue to strive for accuracy, credibility, fairness, and trustworthiness in the Digital Age.
REFERENCES
1. AptiQuant Psychometric Consulting Co. July 26 2011. Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and browser usage: Measuring the effects of cognitive ability on the choice of Web browser. July 26, Retrieved from http://www.AptiQuant.com/downloads/IQ-Browser-AptiQuant-2011.pdf
2. Carmody, T. August 3 2011. ‘Internet Explorer users have lower IQs’ study is a hoax: Here are some of the red flags August 3, Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/08/internet-explorer-users-have-lower-iqs-study-is-a-hoax-here-are-some-of-the-red-flags/Wired.com.
3. Evans, S. 2011. Updated: ‘IE users are dumb.’ Hoaxer says sorry. Computer Business Review, August 4 Retrieved from http://www.ojr.org/ojr/ethics/1017782140.php
4. Hernandez, R. 2011. What's your role in correcting a retweeted hoax?. Web Journalist Blog., August 3 Retrieved from http://blog.webjournalist.org/tag/corrections/
5. Lasica, J. D. 2002. A scorecard for net news ethics. Online Journalism Review, April 2 Retrieved from http://www.ojr.org/ojr/ethics/1017782140.php
6. Ward, S. J. A. 2010. Digital media ethics. Center for Journalism Ethics, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison.. Retrieved from http://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/resources/digital-media-ethics/
