So, how did RadarOnline blow it that badly? Here's how:
In this age of instant news everybody wants a scoop, but without confirmed sources this kind of stuff can and will happen. Unfortunately, depending on the nature of the story it can also have a dramatic effect on the markets and can cost people a lot of money.
We found out from a few first-year students at the Georgetown University Law Center that a criminal law professor had taught them a lesson that morning on the validity of informants not explaining their sources. Professor Peter Tague started the class by saying that he knew John Roberts would soon be retiring for health reasons, but that he could not tell his students who had told him this. Thanks to our living in the wired age, at least one student texted, g-chatted, or emailed someone outside of the class. Somehow that news made its way to someone at Radar, who jumped on the story.
Midway through the class, Professor Tague revealed that the Roberts information was not true. That he was teaching them a lesson! I'm not sure what he intended to accomplish exactly, but I doubt he wanted it to spread like wildfire through the blogosphere. Still, teaching lesson FAIL.
Posts
1 comment:
This reminds me of the days when I actually had some opportunities to listen to Rush. One day he said he supported President Clinton--and spent the next hour or so denying he'd said it. Vehemently denying, in some cases, as callers kept saying they'd heard him say it.
Later, he said this was to illustrate the way Clinton worked. I thought Rush did a magnificent job of illustration.
Post a Comment