Basically, someone using the handle "Johntw" claimed that Jobs had suffered a heart attack in an iReport posting around 9am on Friday morning. By 10am, when Apple rebuffed the claim, the Cupertino, CA firm's stock had dropped almost 10% - or $9 Billion in shares.

Predictably, the papers and news services reporting on the incident have rushed in to proclaim this merely another sad example of "the downside" (SF Chron) of "citizen journalism gone awry"(Bloomberg).

Even NYU Professor/Blogger/Media-studies-guru Jay Rosen chided CNN for their naivete, and is quoted by the SF Chronicle:

"I think if you are going to put closed and open systems under one brand, then you have to try to organize the open part so that it does not embarrass you...What the branded news companies cannot do is ... create a low-cost open-gate 'play area,' where the citizens can do their thing and no one carefully watches over it, cultivates it, takes responsibility for building it or for steadily improving the quality of it."

Rosen makes a great point - CNN should watch where it places its brand as it struggles to understand the shifting sands of the participatory web.

However, the fatal flaw in the rest of the coverage is that the authors and editors assume responsibility for the incident should be directed at CNN and it's iReport platform. The sad truth of the matter is that none of the folks who repeated the rumor - and here I'm especially thinking of so-called industry experts such as Silicon Alley Insider's Henry Blodget, who chose to broadcast the misinformation about Jobs on his influential blog - took the time to call a hospital or consider the very real possibility that information submitted to iReport just might be inaccurate.

Clearly, the fact that iReport uses the CNN brand likely facilitated the rumor's credibility, but how does that make CNN responsible for the actions of an idiotic, gullible, or malicious user?

Blodget himself had the chutzpah to write, "'citizen journalism' apparently just failed its first significant test."

To say that CNN or "Citizen Journalism" bears the blame for something as irresponsible as Blodget did is about as reasonable as saying Wikipedia is bad because college kids think everything on it is True.

It's the users of iReport and Wikipedia who need re-educating, not the other way around.

Until information consumers - expert stock-pickers, journalists, and so-called everyday folks who get their news online - learn how to treat what they read with an appropriate level of critical skepticism, it doesn't matter whether you have the editorial staff of the NY Times or an army of 10,000 monkeys writing the stories. There is always a risk that you will read something false.

If you read a user-contributed news item then make the decision to act on that information contained in that story, the institution of so-called citizen journalism is not at fault, you are.

Am I being overly-defensive here? Perhaps. Nevertheless, I'd like to think the point stands: when the corporate media blows a story they (rightfully) catch hell for it, but nobody suggests that the institution of professional journalism is to blame. Instead, we quibble about whether The New York Times should have fired Judith Miller sooner, or hired an ombudsman before the WMD mess and Colin Powell's speech at the UN.

So-called citizen journalists and large-scale distributed news sites complement existing media institutions in numerous and valuable ways.

Indeed, the extent to which reputable news sources such as the NYT failed to perform the traditional role of the 4th Estate during the lead-up to the current War in Iraq is exactly what motivated some of the most important bloggers to jump into the fray.

While false stories and facts that don't always add up are throughout mainstream news, it seems Citizen Journalists are under a tougher microscope.

Tech Crunch quotes the original CNN iReport by SIA:

Steve Jobs was rushed to the ER just a few hours ago after suffering a major heart attack. I have an insider who tells me that paramedics were called after Steve claimed to be suffering from severe chest pains and shortness of breath. My source has opted to remain anonymous, but he is quite reliable. I haven’t seen anything about this anywhere else yet, and as of right now, I have no further information, so I thought this would be a good place to start. If anyone else has more information, please share it.

The false report had a negative effect on Wall Street with the market taking a dive.

This false story though brings up an important point, without that shiny diploma citizen journalists are judged harsher and a bad apple undermines all.

For the citizen journalist, unfounded stories or absolute false claims can not be tolerated. Professional journalists at times falter into a story built on a pack of lies but they have the backing of their papers and editors.

Let's be honest -- the pros can screw up and the lot will not be judged. Citizen journalism being in the baby steps will be judged over and over. The fact that more people than ever rely on news from CJ sites shows that mainstream journalists have a reason to "fear" the less paid writers. Every story will then be searched for errors to discredit the CJ. Each false story makes it harder for a CJ to be trusted. The public sees the bad apple in the print more often than the citizen that breaks a story. Until Citizen Journalism is commonplace the actions of each value the actions of all.

Welcome to the Borg.

Read all about it.

I portavoci della Apple hanno velocemente smentito la notizia, mentre l'evento aveva accesso un'aspra discussione fra i giornali, i bloggers, e i siti di citizen journalism sul futuro della notizia partecipativa.

Durante la giornata, "apple", "steve jobs" e "ireport" furono le parole più cercate e discusse su twitter, mentre risultavano anche tra i keywords più importanti della giornata su google hot trends.

Tanti hanno sottolineato questo evento come una prova del fallimento del citizen journalism, supponendo anche che CNN potrebbe chiudere il loro progetto Ireport, in quanto esso potrebbe togliere credibilità al famoso sito di informazione giornalistica.

E invece, la verità potrebbe essere un'altra. La visibilità (e la presunta credibilità) di Ireport è stata ottenuta sopratutto grazie al fatto che esso sia collegato con il sito principale di CNN, e che il logo CNN è ben visibile nella pagina iniziale di Ireport.

CONFUSIONE, PIUTTOSTO CHE FALLIMENTO

Fosse apparsa in un blog di nicchia, o in una piattaforma indipendente del citizen journalism, alla notizia non sarebbe stata assegnata tutta l'importanza che essa ha avuto come un'informazione apparsa in relazione con il logo della CNN.

In queste pagine è già emmerso il punto di vista che la via più sicura per il successo del citizen journalism è tramite le collaborazioni con i media tradizionali, ma in questo caso la credibilità "prestata" da CNN risulta essagerata.

Dann Gillmor ha scritto nel suo blog che l'errore della CNN sta magari nel fatto che nel sito di Ireport non è dichiarato in una maniera abbastanza chiara che il materiale pubblicato dai citizen journalists su Ireport non è verificato da parte dalla CNN, e che, di conseguenza, esso andrebbe recepito con riserva.

CNN, dall'altra parte, si giustifica dichiarando che, essendo un sito che porta il sottotitolo "unedited, unfiltered news", il materiale pubblicato su Ireport non è responsabilità di CNN, le notizie vengono prese da Ireport e pubblicate su CNN soltanto dopo la verifica. (Nel caso della falsa notizia sull infarto di Jobs, l'informazione non è passata da Ireport a CNN, in quanto, appunto, è risultata falsa).  Inoltre, i portavoci della CNN hanno dichiarato che questo evento non è un motivo valido per chiudere lreport.

La notizia fu seguita e ripostata da parte da numerosi blogger e twitterers, che entro la fine della giornata hanno tutti pubblicato dei post-giustificazioni, spiegando il perchè della loro scelta di re-pubblicare una notizia non verificata. Secondo alcuni, la scelta di re-postare senza verificare è stata sbagliata in quanto, in questo modo si aveva contribuito a dare visibilità e a diffondere una notizia falsa; Secondo altri, non c'è stato niente di male, in quanto la falsa notizia fu segnalata come "rumour", e sottolineata come informazione non-confermata.

Infine, l'autore di questo post sostiene che la discussione sul fallimento del citizen journalism simboleggiato da una notizia falsa sia esagerato, in quanto delle notizie false si sono viste anche nei media tradizionali, senza portare discussioni sul fallimento della professione. Cattivi esempi e abusi di un servizio non significano automaticamente che il servizio in sè non possa avere e non abbia degli scopi più utili.

Rimanendo nel tema della salute di Steve Jobs, si ricordi che il prestigioso sito "tradizionale" della notizia finanziaria Bloomberg, aveva accidentalmente pubblicato l'obituario del fondatore della Apple nell agosto di quest'anno. (E' una pratica comune per i giornali grandi e professionali di preparare gli articoli-obituari delle persone famose, anche se in buona salute).

L'errore sta nel attegiamento delle persone che leggono il materiale apparso sulle piattaforme citizen journalism. Nel caso di Ireport, l'attendibilità del CNN e stata presumibilmente trasferita sulla piataforma Ireport, anche se il sottotitolo di essa (unedited, unfiltered news) sottolinea che nessun tipo di verifica o controllo siano effetuati prima della pubblicazione delle notizie (tranne le verifiche svolte da parte degli stessi utenti di Ireport).

In alcuni casi, anche gli utenti delle piattafrome citizen journalism possono ottenere la reputazione di citizen journalists attendibili. Questo, di solito si ottiene attraverso il sistema di votazione da parte di altri utenti, la popolarità degli articoli pubblicati etc.

Nel caso dell'utente johntw, non si poteva parlare di nessuna credibilità dell'utente in quanto la falsa notizia dell infarto di Jobs fu il suo primo post su Ireport. (Si suppone, infatti, che johntw poteva essere una persona che aveva degli interessi particolari nel far scendere i prezzi della Apple nella borsa: questo anche perchè è stato rivelato che l'utente abbia pubblicato i suoi post da un computer con IP mascherato).

Alcuni blogger hanno sottolineato che il sistema di verifica "dal basso" non abbia fallito nemmeno in questo caso: la notizia (falsa) è stata pubblicata, ha ottenuto visibilità attraverso la rete e attraverso la blogosfera, ma ha durato poco, in quanto è presto stata smascherata.

Si riporta il caso del digg.com: la notizia falsa ottenne numerosi digg, ma nonostante ciò non aveva raggiunto la prima pagina proprio grazie ad un controllo dal basso: numerosi utenti hanno re-postato la notizia sensazionale, ma furono numerosi anche quelli che hanno sospettato l'attendibilità di questa informazione, votandola negativamente (il termine specifico che il sito digg usa per la valutazione negativa è: Bury- seppelire, come opposto di digg- scavare).

Quando si parla della notizia dal basso, la cosa più importante è capire che per essa non valgono gli stessi criteri come per la notizia tradizionale/professionale.

Nel caso della notizia professionale/tradizionale, è presunto un sistema di verifica (fact-checking) che avviene  prima della pubblicazione della notizia; nel caso della notizia dal basso, l'unico fact-checker è la persona comune, il citizen journalist.

In una maniera simile nella quale una testata può ottenere una maggiore o minore credibilità tra i lettori/riceventi della notizia, questo può accadere anche con i citizen journalists.

Ma in un caso come Ireport, dove non esiste nessun tipo di filtro applicato dalla piattaforma per moderare il contributo del citizen journalist, l'esito finale (la notizia) non può essere la responsabilità della piattaforma.

La notizia non viene valutata prendendo in considerazione l'attendibilità della piattaforma in sé, in quanto la piattaforma è, in questo caso, dichiaratamente, irresponsabile del contenuto pubblicato ("unedited, unfiltered news").

Tutta la responsabilità viene trasferita, quindi, al contribuente, al citizen journalist (in questo caso a johntw). Johntw non era ne un giornalista della CNN, ne un contribuente di una piattaforma CJ filtrata. Il lettore, doveva, quindi valutare la notizia pubblicata come la parola di una persona completamente sconosciuta (non esiste nessuna traccia di johntw tranne questa notizia), al posto di valutarla come una notizia sopportata o protetta da parte dalla CNN.

Non è fallito, quindi, il citizen journalism, sono falliti i lettori, non avendo riuscito a capire come ricevere questo tipo di notizie.

La bufera riguardo all infarto di Steve Jobs, non è, quindi, una conferma che citizen journalism fallirà: piuttosto, è una conferma, che esso sia un fenomeno ai suoi inizi, e che bisogna capirlo meglio, per potersi servire meglio da ciò che esso possa offrire.

I’m terrible about guessing attendance but I’d say there are maybe 100 people here and more than half have computers of some sort. Half of us are Twittering as we watch. We check the speakers facts on Google as they talk; they know we will because if there were sitting they’d do it too.

So it’s fun to see the impact of broadband on community activists and storytellers (that’s the general attendee demographic) at a conference. And then it’s been fun hear about the impact of the Internet (and to some degree broadband) has had on community activists, storyteller, and media.

One fun, broadband-based project is The UpTake. They give cameras (or use video applications of cell phones) to citizen journalists and upload the video in real time. They came about for the RNC but the reach and focus has expanded. So the volunteers tape news as it happens and viewers can see it as it happens. (I knew about The UpTake – but didn’t get the real time aspect of it before today; they also archive video.)

Here are my notes from the morning...

Sadly I missed Mark Ritchie, but I decided that on a Saturday I would do my normal routine and then go to quasi-work.

Robyne Robinson

Robyne predicted the death of local media. We’ve already seen it in local papers; the local TV news is not far behind.

TV is our friend but we can’t really (effectively) communicate with it. TV is/was a public service entity. In the last 10 years, the FCC got rid of the regulations linked to community/public service. So it’s not happening as mcuh anymore. (Ann's note: Cable stations are the exception - although a statewide cable franchising option might minimize the impact/availability of public service programming in cable.)

How can we make ourselves active again?

If you have a message to get out ythen ou need to find a way to be a subversive. TV is a corporate entity. We have an ally in the people who work for TV. The station may be corporate, but the people aren’t. So how do you reach that person? Get to know the people related to the news. Technology has made it easier. Be persistence. Be a pest until someone talks to you.

What are your credentials? Think of any connection you might have or any group to which you belong. The number of people you represent turns into ratings for the reporter.

Make your story relevant to make the sale easier to the reporter. Once you get the story – be your own PR person. Tell folks about the story, get more people to watch the story, beef up their ratings and they’ll come to you again.

Get to know your enemy! This was a great response to an attendee saying that mainstream media doesn’t do enough and then admitted that he didn’t watch the regular media. It’s hard to be subversive if you don’t know your enemy.

Minnesota FOX news got in trouble with the police for following one protestor. They did the best they could for FOX radio. (That’s not my commentary.)

How do you keep up with a base knowledge? Stay on the street. Read everything. Talk to people. It’s our job to know what’s going on in our world. Being networked isn’t enough.

Media Justice and MAG-Net – Amalia Anderson

Media Justice and MAG-Net (Media Action Grassroots Network) in Minnesota started 2004. They build alliances of regional partners to use media for community organizing and strengthening. The focus is on cultural organizing. It sounds as if they try to get the folks who need their voices raised and need a media ombudsman.

I was particularly interested in their Main Street Project, who “works to document the challenges facing people in increasingly diverse rural communities, give voice to their hopes and aspirations, and provide creative and practical tools to turn possibilities into realities.”

MAG-Net has a Ten Point Platform for Media Justice:
1. Representative and Accountable Content.
2. True Universal Media Access: Full, Fast, and Free for All.
3. Public Airwaves - Public Ownership.
4. Community-Centered Media Policy.
5. Corporate Media Accountability and Just Enforcement of Media Rules.
6. Redefine and Redistribute First Amendment Rights.
7. Cultural Sovereignty and Self-Determination.
8. Full and Fair Digital Inclusion.
9. Another Media is Possible - If We Fund It.
10. Full and Fair Representation in the Movement for Media Reform.

The Uptake – Mike McIntee

The uptake is a nonprofit media organization that started a year ago really to cover the RNC. The goal was to let citizens show their pictures and videos. They were able to grab live video from cell phones, which was important because when the reporters were arrested – their video was taken with them.

Calls the mainstream media the Legacy media. The media folks could not get in and/or out of the barriers at the RNC so they could only over so much – never mind they had their schedules set. Because The Uptake was mobile, they could take and air immediately. (CNN actually called them for video.) Arming the citizens with a voice gets a clearer vision of the whole picture.

They have a lot of volunteers who took up cameras for the cause. It was amazing to watch the video. I wasn’t in the thick of any tear gas – but watching the video kind of brings back the day and the intensity and the scariness.

Where do you draw the line, though, between "real" journalism and anything-goes rogue journalism? Is it acceptable for news outlets that enjoy a perceived credibility, riding the increasingly blurry line between the professional and unprofessional, to pick up a blog story (i.e., a rumor) and report on it, provided they qualify it with the adjective "unconfirmed"?

Critics of citizen journalism scored a point this week when a false report that Apple CEO Steve Jobs had suffered a major heart attack led to a very sudden, 10% dip in Apple's stock trading value. CNet's Greg Sandoval reported on how the rumor originated, spread, created a panic, and then died, all in a matter of minutes. Apparently, the rumor began on iReport.com a CNN-sponsored community blog, which promises: "Unedited. Unfiltered. News." The identity of the user who submitted the report is being investigated by the SEC.

At issue for many media traditionalists, is that the "story" was picked up by a well-regarded digital business blog, Silicon Alley Insider, which reported on it without first hearing from Apple or Jobs's representatives, simply noting that the report was "unconfirmed."

Amidst much controversy, Silicon Alley Insider defended their decision, arguing that: a. the story had gained traction when the report was spread, and thus somehow substantiated, via posts to Twitter and Digg; b. in occupying the unique niche of "online journalists," they do not view their roles as serving as media "gatekeepers;" and c. as such, they should not be held to the same standards of accuracy as mainstream outlets like The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. They conclude that their primary responsibility is to privilege immediacy of information over accuracy.

Hm. Really?

The reason I think these people should not be considered journalists is because journalists are supposed to adhere to facts, and while complete objectivity is hard to achieve, journalists have a moral obligation (or in many cases, news rooms have strict guidelines) to be fair.

Groundless rumors, however, generated on the Internet, are making their way into mainstream news without proper filtering. From malicious posts about celebrities to possible manipulations of the stock market (as seen in the latest rumor of Steve Jobs) people are out there writing all kinds of weird stuff. But publishing it on their blog is one thing- publishing it on a news site (or what some organizations claim is a news site) is different. Although I respect generativity and self-regulatory actions on the Web (such as those that can be seen on Wikipedia) news stories can't wait that long to be confirmed. They should be confirmed before being published.

One reason for this is because now that operations such as stock trading are done by computers, a news story can affect one's trading without even knowing or reading of the incorrect article. For instance, many people who trade stocks or foreign exchange usually preset a certain percentage so that the computer automatically sells or buys if the share price falls or rises by a certain percent. It's not even the shareholder who is making a sales decision.

The Apple story in particular was a bit shocking because just two weeks ago in Prof. Lewis' class, we looked at a case study from 2002 in which United Airlines' stock was affected by a faulty news story. (this wasn't the fault of a citizen journalist)

Steve Jobs was rushed to the ER just a few hours ago after suffering a major heart attack. I have an insider who tells me that paramedics were called after Steve claimed to be suffering from severe chest pains and shortness of breath. My source has opted to remain anonymous, but he is quite reliable. I haven't seen anything about this anywhere else yet, and as of right now, I have no further information, so I thought this would be a good place to start. If anyone else has more information, please share it.

Shares of Apple plummetted five percent or so before rebounding once people realized the story was a steaming load of B.S. Some people might have lost -- or made -- a nice bit of money in the brief moments of chaos. In fact, the SEC is investigating.

I'm still holding out for "Citizen Open Heart Surgery;" it might be one way out of this country's health insurance mess.

Better yet, maybe I'll call myself a "Citizen Electrician" and try to rewire somebody's house for them; I'm sure that would be a public service.

Image via CrunchBase

Apple’s shares plummeted 10 per cent on Friday morning after iReporter.com, a CNN-owned website, published a false report claiming that Steve Jobs had suffered a heart attack. The report was luckily picked up and quickly denied, helping the shares to recover.

With financial markets precariously balanced as it is, investors must trust their source of information otherwise it causes chaos. It also shows the unruly nature of so called, citizen journalism.

Related articles by Zemanta

• CNN/ Jobs Heart Attack Scandal: 100% not a failure of citizen journalism

There are so many positive contributions going on around the world with citizen journalists. It is such a shame to learn of someone taking advantage of this privilege and posting an erroneous story about how Apple CEO Steve Jobs had a heart attack. At it's core this is wrong and it is unfortunate as it casts a cloud over the whole citizen journalist movement. Secondly as was the case this false report had a major financial impact on the stock value of Apple as the blog was picked up by mainstream media and investors showed their concern by selling shares. The citizen journalist responsible for this false report about Steve Jobs could now face criminal charges for stock manipulation, according to one attorney. Lastly, in this case the mainstream media outlet looks like it rushed the story for news value and overlooked its responsibility of checking sources to validate the claims.

We must all respect the privilege of citizen journalism and act responsibly when we publish on the Internet.

read more | digg story

Image via Wikipedia

Related articles

• CNN iReport Falsely Claims Jobs Heart Attack
• Apple's stock hit by Web rumor
• CNN/ Jobs Heart Attack Scandal: 100% not a failure of citizen journalism
• Shorting a stock, 2.0 style

Steve Jobs was rushed to the ER just a few hours ago after suffering a major heart attack. I have an insider who tells me that paramedics were called after Steve claimed to be suffering from severe chest pains and shortness of breath. My source has opted to remain anonymous, but he is quite reliable. I haven’t seen anything about this anywhere else yet, and as of right now, I have no further information, so I thought this would be a good place to start. If anyone else has more information, please share it.

This brought about 2 conerns on my part. Firstly, its that this rumour was sparked by citizen journalism. Secondly, should a company's reputation be so intrinsically linked to the CEO?

Regarding the first point, i did a post on citizen journalism a while back and it was amazing to see the shift in power was not only going to consumers in a marketing and communicaitons perspective, but rather the fact that they have control of the kind of news they can publish. However, this rumour sparked off by citizen journalism is terrible. It undermines the credibility in which news by citizen journalism is being published. Do they just push tabloid news which are based on rumours which are completly false? Thats y i did the post on the blogosphere becoming the next tabloid and the ehtical guidelines blogging should have to prevent such a thing from happeneing!

The second concern was how a CEO should be linked with the company's reputation so tightly. I mean, the CEO is just a figurehead who can be replaced at anytime with someone with equal capabilities. It doesn't mean if Steve Job dies, Apple is gonna shut down. They've already built such a great brand and although their CEO is an extremely great presenter, my concern is 'Should Apple's reputation have such a great dependence on their CEO?'

I did the post on Asian CEOs and online videos, stating how i tot it would be good for Asain companies to use their CEOs like how Apple uses Steve Jobs. However, shouldn't we draw a line on the dependence of a CEO for the company's reputation?

But Tech Crunch gave a good reccomendation at the end of their article stating that it would be good if a heir is named to the Apple throne. This would definetly ease the worry of shareholders and other stakeholders.

So a dip in Apple shares has brought out some profound effects for me to think about...

From USA Today:

If you haven't heard: Steve Jobs is not dead, or sick, or apparently anything else out of the norm.

Owners of Apple stock can be excused for having little heart attacks of their own this morning after rumors surfaced that Jobs, Apple's CEO and the very public face of the company, had suffered a heart attack. The rumors appear to have originated on CNN's iReport citizen journalist website, according to Bloomberg News (and many other sources) and Apple's stock temporarily sank more than 5%. Apple had to put out a statement batting down the rumor.

The health of Jobs, 53, is watched closely because he is a pancreatic cancer survivor and is given a large amount of credit for Apple's continuing success in computers and consumer electronics.

From the New York Times:

Apple’s stock took a brief roller coaster ride this morning after a CNN “citizen journalist” wrote that an “insider” reported that Steve Jobs had been rushed to the hospital with chest pains.

Apple immediately said that the rumor was false.

A company spokeswoman, Katie Cotton, said, “It’s not true. There is no truth to the rumor.” She said she did not know the identity of “johntw,” the individual who posted the rumor, and was not willing to speculate on what the motive for the posting might have been.

The report raised questions on several blogs about the role of citizen journalism, and there was speculation that the incident would lead to an investigation by securities regulators.

Apple’s shares abruptly declined as much as 5.4 percent after the post on iReport, CNN’s citizen journalist Web site, stated that Mr. Jobs had had a “major heart attack.”

Image by acaben via Flickr

The false report about Steve Jobs that briefly surfaced on CNN's iReport site has prompted a wave of discussion on the "failings" of citizen journalism.

Apple swiftly dismissed the rumour, and CNN removed the item.

Across the web, there are comments about "the dangers of citizen journalism" (BBC), "citizen journalism just failed" (Read/Write/Web) or the "perils of citizen journalism" (Computerworld).

These reports suggesting the imminent death of citizen journalism are greatly exaggerated. They miss the basic point by treating an unsubstantiated report on a unfiltered web page as if it were published by a professionally-edited news outlet.

As a CNN spokesperson told the BBC that:

iReport.com is an entirely user-generated site where the content is determined by the community. Content that does not comply with Community Guidelines will be removed. After the content in question was uploaded to iReport.com, the community brought it to our attention.

While the site may be hosted by CNN, it is clearly labelled as not part of its professional news operation.

We need to stop judging citizen media sites by the standards that we apply to established news outlets. It is like comparing apples and oranges. They are not the same and not intended to be the same. Citmedia sites tend to work on the basis of publish first, verify later.

The stupidity here lies with those who took an unsubstantive rumour and acted on the basis of it.  How many of us would act on something we overheard on the bus or in a bar? The rational thing to do is to check it out, to verify the facts.

This is the value of journalism. In an age when everyone is a publisher, there is a greater need than ever for journalists to verify and authentic information, rather than leap on a rumour.

The only problem is the story is untrue, leaving the web to reexamine its love of open-source journalism.

My personal take is that the web has always had a caveat emptor disclaimer, especially when the product is information. In other words, we who digest our info off the web need to do our own research to get the facts. It's the only way citizen journalism works.

ReadWriteWeb has a great overview of the story here >>

Further reading: Apple stock has heart attack [Valleywag] >>

Sarah stood toe to toe with an old Democrat who has been in Congress since she was in second grade.

"This was a knockout. She did the best of any debate I've ever seen." -- Rudy Guliani

She is more than qualified. She is a maverick governor of a large, important state.

She uses plain talk.

"McCain rang the warning bell in 2005. The Democrat Party ignored that warning and shut it off. That's why we are in the financial bail out we are in," Sarah Palin.

Create jobs, lower taxes, end the war with victory...

-- Sarah Palin

Look, $180 billion to Kenya's poor?

Energy independence.

I can't wait to get to work there.

Did Joe Biden's kids go to public schools? Did Clinton's? Did Kerry's? Did Obama's?

Why do the teachers unions send their dues to Democrat elitists?

Joe there you go again.

Our schools need to be ramped up. Palin comes from a family of school teachers. Increase the standards.

"We need people from middle America's opinions. They know what hard work and morals are about."

"I'm totally blown away," Senator Fred Thomson.

I'm so happy for her. She has been made to look like a bafoon. She has placed shame on a lot of people if they are capable of shame," Thomson.

Obama said he would sit down with Amadidajon.

Biden said he was against coal. All coal in the U.S.

Try and say the following with a straight face to a liberal friend:

Senator Biden made the performance of a lifetime. He is substanitive, presidential and has gravitas. Sarah Palin, the hockey mom, pitbull with lipstick was an embarassment. What does she know about governing? She was an embarassment!"

Dogs are becoming more intelligent and are even learning morals from human contact, scientists reported at a conference in Budapest recently.

They say the fact that dogs' play rarely escalates into a fight shows the animals abide by social rules.

During one study, dogs which held up a paw were rewarded with a food treat.

When a lone dog was asked to raise its paw but received no treat, the researchers found it begged for up to 30 minutes.

But when they tested two dogs together but rewarded only one, the dog which missed out soon stopped playing the game.

Dr Friederike Range, of the University of Vienna, who led the study, said: "Dogs show a strong aversion to inequity."

So we look at the PBS modirator for tonight's VP Debate. If Obama wins the election, she is going to receive a $350,000 to $500,000 bonus  for her book she is promoting on Obama and other African  Democrats.

The moderator of tonight's vice-presidential debate is writing a book to come out on the day the next president takes the oath of office that aims to "shed new light" on Democratic candidate Barack Obama and other "emerging young African American politicians" who are "forging a bold new path to political power."

Gwen Ifill of the Public Broadcasting Service program "Washington Week" is promoting "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," in which she argues the "black political structure" of the civil rights movement is giving way to men and women who have benefited from the struggles over racial equality.

Ifill declined to return telephone messages from "The Factor" and WND asking for a comment about her book project and whether its success would be expected should Obama lose. But she has faced criticism previously for not treating candidates of both major parties the same.

During a vice-presidential candidate debate she moderated in 2004 – when Democrat John Edwards attacked Republican Dick Cheney's former employer, Halliburton – the vice president said, "I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take more than 30 seconds."

Ms. Ifill was lauded for snapping back at Mr. Cheney.

"Well, that's all you've got," she told Mr. Cheney.

Ifill told the Associated Press Democrats were delighted with her answer, because they "thought I was being snippy to Cheney."

But she also was cited in complaints PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler said he received after Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin delivered her nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., earlier this month.

Some viewers complained of a "dismissive" look by Ifill during her report on Palin's speech. According to Getler, some also said she wore a look of "disgust" while reporting on the Republican candidate.

Google the facts yourself if you have any doubts. Care to comment?

Note to new readers: PBS is a nationalized, taxpayer supported news medium.

Conclusion: Your loyal dog Spots has more sense of fairness than the mainstream media. Nothing will get in the way of elite liberal Democrats in their power grab. This smells awful. Or are you OK with it?

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.705169&w=270&h=250&fv=width%3D512%26height%3D374%26file%3D%2Fflvideo%2F2465.flv%26recommendations%3D%2Fplayer%2Frecommendations.xml.php%3Fq%3Dincendio%252C+piacenza%252C+obi%252C+fiamme%26frontcolor%3D0x346132%26lightcolor%3D0x3F5283%26autostart%3Dtrue]

Jag kan nu sent omsider glädjande konstatera att han också fått en framskjuten roll som krönikör i SJF's tidning Journalisten. En tidning som dittills och enligt min mening bedrivit en nära nog dammtorr journalistik till få läsares glädje. Men i och med tidningens omgörning och nya skribenter (även andra nykomlingar ska ha cred) så har jag numer viss glädje av mediet.

Senaste i raden av krönikor från Bie har väckt mitt intresse: "Twitter som arbetsverktyg" och "Skapa ordning i arbetslivet – på nätet". Låt mig få fokusera mig på förstnämnda. Bra, Bie. Äntligen någon på Journalisten som lyfter fram något nytt och fräscht ur journalisternas vardag.

Bie skriver:

"Täcker man teknik, IT, Internet eller något annat elektroniskt är Twitter ofta den snabbaste källan."

Och utvecklar tesen:

"Det är lätt att avfärda nya former av kommunikation som Twitter med inställningen att det mest är på lek eller bara "sånt som ungdomar håller på med". Men då har man missat hur några mer seriösa medier (särskilt amerikanska sådana) börjat använda Twitter till allt från att upptäcka nyheter, genomföra intervjuer, kvalitetsgranska och marknadsföra redaktionellt arbete."
För den oinvigde kan jag berätta att Twitter är en av många många microbloggar som poppat upp senaste tiden. En microblogg är en blandning av blogg och forum. Där användarna oftast är såväl konsumenter som producenter av små inlägg (begränsat antal tecken om ca 150). Man följer de man anser vara intressanta och vice versa. De inlägg som berör och engagerar resulterar i alltifrån en till en lång tråd av kommentarer.

Den vanliga blogsfären har sen ganska länge varit en populär och givande källa för många journalister. Med information direkt från händelsernas centrum. Rå och oförvanskad. Oftast. Nu har de också fått upp ögonen för andra sociala medier som communities, microbloggar, etc.

Bie skriver:
"Man kan också använda Twitter som ett intervjuverktyg mellan två registrerade användare. Det blir en ganska skön, dynamisk och snabb konversation än via vanlig chatt eller e-mail eftersom man är begränsad till 140 tecken per post."

Men de är inte ensamma - journalisterna - om att utnyttja detta faktum. Media lägger upp RSS-feeds på egna Twitter-konton, för den som vill följa senaste nytt. Kolla exempelvis in Sydsvenskans feed.

Så vad gör kommunikatörerna på företagen? Lägger upp sina feeds på Twitter förstås. Kolla in föregångaren Dell: "Dell on Twitter - Follow us. Dell Offers, News, Blogs, & Community Sites on Twitter".

"Perhaps you already use Twitter to communicate with your friends, find out about breaking news, and keep up with technology and social media (or even political) leaders. Now you can also get great deals from Dell, stay current with what's happening at Dell, and connect with other Dell fans and employees through Twitter!"

Var finns din marknad? Och var finns de som har störst inflytand på den? Var finns de som kan tänkas vara intresserade av dig och ditt företag? På Twitter? Jamen, då ska du ju möta deras behov där - också. On demand. Follow us. If you're interested.

Inte sant, Bie?

PS. Läs också om Dells presskonferens på Twitter. I Neville Hobson blog. DS
Andra bloggar om: blogg, microblogg, media, journalistik, verktyg, web, web 2.0, internet, pr, pr 2.0