FC: The Register reluctantly admits RIAA "secret meeting" was hoax

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Wed Oct 10 2001 - 21:35:58 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: U.K. firm finds hidden messages that "might" implicate bin Laden"

    It was the perfect, evil-music-industry story: A clandestine meeting
    where chieftans from AOL Time Warner, RIAA, SDMI, Disney, Intel, and
    even U.S. senators sat down to decide how to stop piracy, embrace
    copy-protection technology, and generally screw over American
    consumers.
    
    The Register got the tip from an anonymous source, and immediately
    turned it into an article. It said: "The RIAA hosted a secret meeting
    in Washington DC with the heads of major record labels and technology
    companies, plus leaders of other trade bodies and even members of the
    US senate." (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/22087.html).
    
    It would have been a tremendous scoop for the website -- and would
    have been vital information that the public deserved to know.
    
    The only problem: It was a hoax. The purported "meeting" was a
    fabrication, spoof, and fantasy. It never took place.
    
    I don't typically criticize fellow journalists -- we all make
    mistakes, we never have as much information as we'd like, and
    deadlines are always too early -- but this article is beyond the
    pale. Instead of checking to see whether the alleged participants were
    still employed by their respective companies (some weren't), spending
    two minutes on the phone asking RIAA whether it happened, or using the
    barest glimmerings of journalistic sense, the Register credulously
    reported fiction as fact.
    
    In a grudging retraction on Wednesday, the paper compounded its
    problems by beginning its article with this line: "The trouble
    with the Internet is that it's just too darn fast."
    (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/31/22138.html)
    
    No, the trouble has nothing to do with the Internet. It has everything
    to do with shoddy journalism. Worse yet, the halfhearted retraction
    still argued, pitifully and implausibly, that the quotes supplied by
    Anonymous "may" still be accurate. An update to the original article,
    instead of saying forthrightly we-were-hoaxed, instead allowed only
    that "our source may not be all he or she claimed to be." Right.
    
    Caveat lector.
    
    -Declan
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Oct 10 2001 - 21:54:54 PDT