October 3rd, 2008
False Steve Jobs Heart Attack Report on CNN’s iReport Is a Failure of Open Systems
Someone posted a false report that Steve Jobs had heart attack to CNN’s citizen journalism site iReport. The fallout (which could include an SEC investigation) lead to the inevitable question of whether this is a failure of citizen journalism.
It’s not. It’s a failure of open systems.
As Sarah Perez points out at ReadWriteWeb, ANYONE can become a citizen journalist on iReport:
Apparently, it’s as easy to become a citizen journalist on CNN as it is to sign up for a new web app from an internet startup, if not easier. The process involves nothing more than filling out a name, screen name, and email address. Adding a phone number is optional and only necessary if you want the story to be considered by CNN. There’s a CAPTCHA to prevent bots and an email confirmation link, but thanks to disposable email addresses, those are practically a waste of time these days.
“Citizens” — people who are not professional journalists — can use a platform like iReport to legitimately report news. Remember those eyewitness reports from the Minnesota bridge collapse?
The problem is — and this is something that advocates of citizen journalism typically overlook — that if a platform is open, and anyone can participate, that means not only can well-intentioned citizens participate but so can bad actors, spammers, liars, cheats, and thieves.
That’s the double-edged swords of open systems — you have to take the bad with the good. In fact, you have to EXPECT the bad with the good. The ideology of open participation has revolutionized media, but that same ideology is often quite naive.
Someone posts a false report to a citizen journalism platform — I’m shocked, SHOCKED to find that gambling is going on in here!
Ask Google or Digg about the problem with open systems — heaven help you if you’re successful, because you will be consigned to waging a nonstop battle again spam and every imaginable type of malicious behavior.
When we first conceived of Publish2 as a platform exclusively for journalists, we worried that we would take a lot of flack for trying to define who a journalist is at a time when that definition is expanding. But we realized that our “velvet rope” is really about what we want to keep OUT, i.e. covert PR, undisclosed marketing, and SPAM. That’s why rather than a definition we opted for a set of editorial standards.
The issue with citizen journalism is not about who is qualified or smart enough to be a journalist. It’s about TRUST and TRANSPARENCY. It may not be brain surgery, but (dis)information in the wrong hands does have the potential to do real harm. There’s a reason why journalism has developed standards for reporting, sourcing, fact checking, and accuracy.
It’s because these standards protect people.
New organizations like CNN that have rolled out completely open systems should think carefully about the potential harm that can be done when they toss out editorial standards in the name of open participation.
iReport’s tagline is “Unedited. Unfiltered. News.” Yeah, well, throw in lies and spam and anything else besides “news” that “the people” want to throw in.
Saying anyone can participate in journalism doesn’t mean there should be no standards. And launching an unpoliced open system doesn’t mean it will always be used for anything that can fairly be called journalism.
UPDATE
Instead of trying to host the citizen journalism, to OWN it, which is of course what traditional media organizations are designed to do, news sites should find the citizen journalism already being done on the ultimate open platform — the web. And when they find good reporting, and verify it according to journalistic standards, then they can LINK to it. So instead of creating an open spam platform, news sites will have created more connections on the web and elevated the link to form of news judgement.
But that actually requires a bit of effort. It’s so much easier to set up an open platform and let people run wild… until it blows up in your face and sucks value out of your news brand. Which is reckless, because trusted brands are news organization’s greatest assets.
Here’s an idea for news orgs — publish a how to video or screencast that teaches people in your community how to set up their own blog and report. And tell them that if they do good work, you’ll link to them and send them traffic. And guess what — they’ll link back to you. That’s the way the web works. That’s the beauty of the web.
Powered by 
Design by 
Those are all good points as usual, Scott. But as I noted in the blog post I wrote about it, I don’t think the process failed in this case. A fake report was posted by dozens of people (including me, on Twitter) and briefly affected the stock, but it was widely debunked and corrected in half a dozen places within half an hour of its first appearance. Maybe I’m wrong, but I see that as a success of an open system (or citizen journalism, or whatever you want to call it) rather than a failure.
Mathew,
The reason the report got debunked is, first, people did some real reporting and called Apple. Second, many of the people who originally propagated it took responsibility and then propagated the correction. And they did that because the false report was connected to their real identities.
It’s not that open systems can’t self-correct. The point is that people rarely talk about the risks. It’s all sunshine ideology.
But it’s not all or nothing. You could still have a successful and much less risky open system if, for example, you took a Facebook approach and insisted on real identity. But that takes extra effort.
More thoughts in my update above.
1st Tweets ~ Steve Jobs Heart Attack ~ Timeline/Chart… http://tweetip.us/lkq3e
You are quite right that people rarely talk about the risks — and I agree that a better way for existing media to handle “citizen journalism” or whatever we’re calling it is to link to the credible stuff wherever it appears.
[…] failure of open systems Posted on October 4, 2008 by ahoving False Steve Jobs Heart Attack Report on CNN’s iReport Is a Failure of Open Systems […]
[…] Publishing 2.0 syyttää CNN:n palvelua asiasta, eikä kansalaisjournalista. Vika on avoimessa järjestelmässä johon kuka vaan voi julkaista tarinoitaan. Kyse ei ole siitä kuka on tarpeeksi pätevä tai älykäs journalistiksi: The issue with citizen journalism is not about who is qualified or smart enough to be a journalist. It’s about TRUST and TRANSPARENCY. It may not be brain surgery, but (dis)information in the wrong hands does have the potential to do real harm. There’s a reason why journalism has developed standards for reporting, sourcing, fact checking, and accuracy. – Scott Karp, Publishing 2.0 […]
Even responsible journalists make mistakes (remember the Google/airlines bankruptcy thing?). I’d rather we keep things open, but have editor/moderators who help avoid this stuff (however imperfectly).
My first wife was a journalist with a BA and MA from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in Journalism.
Even accredited news sources have made errors in the past. Most recently was the debacle at CBS which lead to the ouster of Dan Rather. But, most professional journalism is at a high standard even though marketing types do try to influence what is news.
The only way a citizen’s journalism can ever work would be to hold off publishing an article until it has been confirmed. But, that negates the purpose of Internet News (InterNews?).
Maybe a standard is needed whereby articles are submitted. Those which would have little impact might be approved for immediate publication while others may be held until confirmed. This would require an “editor” in the same manner of classical news reporting.
[…] The problem is — and this is something that advocates of citizen journalism typically overlook — that if a platform is open, and anyone can participate, that means not only can well-intentioned citizens participate but so can bad actors, spammers, liars, cheats, and thieves. [source] […]
You’re right… the open systems truly are a double edge sword. You have to weigh on what’s more important - the opportunity to get your news from sources OTHER than mainstream media? Or relying solely on them and perhaps getting a skewed image of what occurred or even delayed.
It’s all a trade off.
[…] The Steve Jobs heart-attack-rumor was a horse of a different color – it showed the very real consequences of credibility without transparency in the blogosphere. CNN utilizes citizen journalists’ reports as a feature of their website and posted a story from one that said Apple’s Steve Jobs suffered a heart attack, sending Apple stock into a temporary nose dive. Because the story was posted on CNN, it was considered legitimate, it was a credible story, but because there was not transparency (ie it wasn’t obvious that it was an unverified story from a citizen journalist) before it went live, a rumor became a news-story, which had very real effects on the company stock, not to mention a potential SEC investigation…and as Scott Karp notes, possible implications for the future of “citizen journalism.” […]
[…] has a post up about the rumored heart attack suffered by Steve Jobs and how CNN’s iReport and other citizen journalism outlets can be gamed and hurt the credibility […]
Scott, I think you’re a visionary but your headline here strikes me a little sensational…
A more productive angle to take might have been: “Industrial media companies’ goals and intentions predispose them to poor open system design.”
(doesn’t quite have that “ring” to it, but you know what I mean
Your underlying point is super valid (someone like Scott Karp should be designing software-mediated communities)
[…] Citizen journalism did not fail. This is old by now, but the idea that citizen journalism failed because some twerp posted a fake item about Steve Jobs to CNN’s iReport is ably dismantled by Cory Bergman, Mathew Ingram and Scott Karp. […]
[…] Narvic fa riferimento in particolare al giornalista-blogger Scott Karp, che su Publishing 2.0, vede in questa vicenda non tanto un pesante colpo per il citizen journalism in generale, quanto […]
[…] Publishing 2.0’s Scott Karp argues that media outlets shouldn’t pursue open participation online at the expense of editorial standards: […]
Steve’s strong as an Ox. He’s just gearing up to bring bigger and better things to this industry. Where would the world be without Apple? It just the beginning of Steve’s movement and I know his vision has not been accomplished yet and he’s the type of guy that come hell or high water, he’s going to make it happen. Just look a the revolution products coming one after another. His vision is way ahead of our times and I’m excited about all that coming out from Apple!!
Just out of curiosity, is there anyone who’s been identified as the next leader of Apple?