UM, NO.
THIS is where the fucking JARED/SANDY IS OFF SAGA CAME FROM.
ETA: I know it's from the TwoP/IMDB forums first, but I meant the news on LJ via ohnotheydidnt.
ETA 2: sandramccoy99 is Miss Sandra McCoy apparently? She asks amphigory to take down the posts in ohnotheydidnt. D: This cannot end well. (I am not sure if that's actually her in her avatar.)
ETA 3:ONTD POST HAS BEEN REMOVED. (Not posting screenshots because we don't need more drama~ :D)
ETA (LAST!): amphigory has retracted, posted here. Also here.
ONTD retraction here.
THIS POST IS NOT AGAINST OP OF SAID ONTD POST. It's about how it was handled, thanks.
Um, no.
Gossip or not: CONFIRM SOURCES. First rule of FUCKING JOURNALISM, whether gossip or not. This is the reason why a lot of gossip columnists get into libel/other sorts of trouble like it. Because they don't confirm.
I assume amphigory had good (I hope) intentions when she posted the news about the break-up, because she wanted everyone to know and such, and that's okay. Information sharing is a good thing--the very purpose of a lot of news websites/blogs, including gossip blogs.
The problem is this: The said author of the whole thing did not CROSS-CHECK with other sources, I.E. getting a second source, or more to confirm what has been just said. I don't fucking care if this is the internet, with news, any kind of news at all, you have to double check.
Fine, sources can remain anonymous, on deep background or background (just a description that's enough to pin the tipper as a reliable source) if you don't want to put the source in trouble--but here's the thing:
YOU CANNOT POST SOMETHING OR PUBLISH SOMETHING IF YOU HAVE NOT CONFIRMED IT WITH OTHER SOURCES.
I'm talking about integrity here. Granted that it's a gossip blog, meaning we can post things we are half-sure of, but the wording of the whole article was so conclusive.
To quote the headline and lead sentence:
Is Jared Padalecki not the lovable puppy everyone seems to think? OMG!! SCANDALOUS!
Earlier today I posted this about the breakup of the engagement of Jared Padalecki and Sandy McCoy. Later I recieved an anonymous comment in my journal from a person who claims to be Sandy McCoy's roommate.
The headline was very, very sensationalist in nature. Regardless of the fact that it's gossip (aside: this is also part of the reason why GOSSIP COLUMNS/PUBLICATION GET INTO SO MUCH TROUBLE), the fact that the article stirs so much controversy from the title is something to frown upon.
It implies that there is very important information about subject (Jared Padalecki), and information that is most probably legitimate. Why most probably? The tone of the whole sentence implies that the author is quite sure of what they are saying.
I do not want to explain the whole "writing as a medium" lesson behind that statement, but if anyone wants me to, I will in the comments.
There are good points, of course. I mean with the article.
I'm sure the author wanted to give information as much as possible. As the author comments at one point: (to paraphrase) "I wanted to do my duty to ONTD"
And assuming duty to the SPN fandom, to let them know or something of the sort. That's okay. Nothing wrong.
affectingly gives her two cents on the whole thing though: ARE YOU MOTHERFUCKING KIDDING ME? she asks.
It's also fine that she and other fans like her kept it to herself, and frankly, that would've been a better thing. Fans keeping news like this to themselves, or within the FANDOM. Not just SPN FANDOM, but all fandoms who like Jared. I'm not saying it's a good thing to gossip, but at the very least, if you must gossip, please keep it to yourselves.
To post something sounding so conclusive, so sure of what it says is inviting wank and trouble into the whole fiasco.
But I still disagree with amphigory with the whole thing.
First off, her article disagrees with every sort of rule possible in the news handbook. Here is the list for the said ethics in the USA, where said author and subject of article are. Checking that, we'd see that this article is slanderous, at the very least.
She says:
Mods, this seems pretty legit. Here is where she contacted me in my journal. I won't release the name her name she gave me in the e-mail. She seems to have some inside info, so I think we can trust her. Your call, though.
Italics/bolding mine
This seems pretty legit. To claim, even imply such information is legitimate is to scream that THIS IS TRUTH OMG OMG OMG!
I say that she should've cross-checked, or posted the information as tentative, because face it, some gossip news ARE THE TRUTH, so it makes a difference when one makes a point at the very start to say that it's tentative, and to remind at the end that it's a wholly unconfirmed tip.
She also should have revealed the name of the tip. Why? This can confirm if the TIP IS ACTUALLY WHO SHE SAYS SHE IS. If she is the real roommate of Sandy, then one (a lot, I'm sure) could have hunted her name down and looked if she was actually a friend of Sandy, and her roommate.
Again, I wish she'd cross-checked. It's unfair to all parties involved: Jared, Sandy, their families, and in a small way, the fans.
Tips aren't everything. Some tips are fake tips. Some tips are tips who skew the truth. Scoops aren't the end-all, be-all of journalism, or any type of news/information dissemination. What's more important is that you, as the author of such information/news, did everything possible to bring what you're writing closer to the truth.
That's what's important.
Of course, I'm not pissed with the bit of news amphigory gave out, I'm more annoyed with how it was given out, how inadequate and unethical the whole thing panned out. Fine, gossip sells, and it's meant to be a rumor, but still. Even rumor magazines try to give sources that are people. Not just someone who commented on their blog. Hell, I could comment on my own blog anonymously and say I'm a tip, and post that a "tip" gave me news.
And I'm not accusing amphigory of this, I'm just pointing out the loopholes here.
ETA: I know it's from the TwoP/IMDB forums first, but I meant the news on LJ via ohnotheydidnt.
ETA 2: sandramccoy99 is Miss Sandra McCoy apparently? She asks amphigory to take down the posts in ohnotheydidnt. D: This cannot end well. (I am not sure if that's actually her in her avatar.)
ETA 3:ONTD POST HAS BEEN REMOVED. (Not posting screenshots because we don't need more drama~ :D)
ETA (LAST!): amphigory has retracted, posted here. Also here.
ONTD retraction here.
THIS POST IS NOT AGAINST OP OF SAID ONTD POST. It's about how it was handled, thanks.
Um, no.
Gossip or not: CONFIRM SOURCES. First rule of FUCKING JOURNALISM, whether gossip or not. This is the reason why a lot of gossip columnists get into libel/other sorts of trouble like it. Because they don't confirm.
I assume amphigory had good (I hope) intentions when she posted the news about the break-up, because she wanted everyone to know and such, and that's okay. Information sharing is a good thing--the very purpose of a lot of news websites/blogs, including gossip blogs.
The problem is this: The said author of the whole thing did not CROSS-CHECK with other sources, I.E. getting a second source, or more to confirm what has been just said. I don't fucking care if this is the internet, with news, any kind of news at all, you have to double check.
Fine, sources can remain anonymous, on deep background or background (just a description that's enough to pin the tipper as a reliable source) if you don't want to put the source in trouble--but here's the thing:
YOU CANNOT POST SOMETHING OR PUBLISH SOMETHING IF YOU HAVE NOT CONFIRMED IT WITH OTHER SOURCES.
I'm talking about integrity here. Granted that it's a gossip blog, meaning we can post things we are half-sure of, but the wording of the whole article was so conclusive.
To quote the headline and lead sentence:
Is Jared Padalecki not the lovable puppy everyone seems to think? OMG!! SCANDALOUS!
Earlier today I posted this about the breakup of the engagement of Jared Padalecki and Sandy McCoy. Later I recieved an anonymous comment in my journal from a person who claims to be Sandy McCoy's roommate.
The headline was very, very sensationalist in nature. Regardless of the fact that it's gossip (aside: this is also part of the reason why GOSSIP COLUMNS/PUBLICATION GET INTO SO MUCH TROUBLE), the fact that the article stirs so much controversy from the title is something to frown upon.
It implies that there is very important information about subject (Jared Padalecki), and information that is most probably legitimate. Why most probably? The tone of the whole sentence implies that the author is quite sure of what they are saying.
I do not want to explain the whole "writing as a medium" lesson behind that statement, but if anyone wants me to, I will in the comments.
There are good points, of course. I mean with the article.
I'm sure the author wanted to give information as much as possible. As the author comments at one point: (to paraphrase) "I wanted to do my duty to ONTD"
And assuming duty to the SPN fandom, to let them know or something of the sort. That's okay. Nothing wrong.
affectingly gives her two cents on the whole thing though: ARE YOU MOTHERFUCKING KIDDING ME? she asks.
It's also fine that she and other fans like her kept it to herself, and frankly, that would've been a better thing. Fans keeping news like this to themselves, or within the FANDOM. Not just SPN FANDOM, but all fandoms who like Jared. I'm not saying it's a good thing to gossip, but at the very least, if you must gossip, please keep it to yourselves.
To post something sounding so conclusive, so sure of what it says is inviting wank and trouble into the whole fiasco.
But I still disagree with amphigory with the whole thing.
First off, her article disagrees with every sort of rule possible in the news handbook. Here is the list for the said ethics in the USA, where said author and subject of article are. Checking that, we'd see that this article is slanderous, at the very least.
She says:
Mods, this seems pretty legit. Here is where she contacted me in my journal. I won't release the name her name she gave me in the e-mail. She seems to have some inside info, so I think we can trust her. Your call, though.
Italics/bolding mine
This seems pretty legit. To claim, even imply such information is legitimate is to scream that THIS IS TRUTH OMG OMG OMG!
I say that she should've cross-checked, or posted the information as tentative, because face it, some gossip news ARE THE TRUTH, so it makes a difference when one makes a point at the very start to say that it's tentative, and to remind at the end that it's a wholly unconfirmed tip.
She also should have revealed the name of the tip. Why? This can confirm if the TIP IS ACTUALLY WHO SHE SAYS SHE IS. If she is the real roommate of Sandy, then one (a lot, I'm sure) could have hunted her name down and looked if she was actually a friend of Sandy, and her roommate.
Again, I wish she'd cross-checked. It's unfair to all parties involved: Jared, Sandy, their families, and in a small way, the fans.
Tips aren't everything. Some tips are fake tips. Some tips are tips who skew the truth. Scoops aren't the end-all, be-all of journalism, or any type of news/information dissemination. What's more important is that you, as the author of such information/news, did everything possible to bring what you're writing closer to the truth.
That's what's important.
Of course, I'm not pissed with the bit of news amphigory gave out, I'm more annoyed with how it was given out, how inadequate and unethical the whole thing panned out. Fine, gossip sells, and it's meant to be a rumor, but still. Even rumor magazines try to give sources that are people. Not just someone who commented on their blog. Hell, I could comment on my own blog anonymously and say I'm a tip, and post that a "tip" gave me news.
And I'm not accusing amphigory of this, I'm just pointing out the loopholes here.