E-PWND: the new york times gets schooled.

(I've completely lost count of my reading responses. It's the one about the NYTimes and the Dating a Banker Anonymous group.)

When I first read about the NYTimes getting punk'd I nearly did a spittake. I found it hilarious that with things like blogs coming into prominence, even a company as vast as NYT was failing to watch their sources closely and double and triple check their authenticity. With media sources jumping at the first story they get they tend to skip the whole vetting process that used to go on.

This is the double edged media sword of blogging.

As much as I love and advocate for the blogosphere I also understand that it's very difficult to keep readership when the newscycle is going 24 hours a day 8 days a week (when you use that much caffeine a mystical 8th day appears in the haze of all that sleeplessness). This causes three things to happen.

1. sourcing get's dodgy- with less time people tend to vet their sources less and their reliability can be shattered horribly if their source turns out to be a complete liar. It's a gamble: if you win you break a huge story and everyone cites you, if you lose your credibility is gone and your readership is gone with it.
2. people go for the sensational- it's something that happens in all of life. In the game of blogging and reporting people are presented with a choice between the safe and consistent which can keep them going at a relatively low level for a long period of time or they can shoot for sensational and hope they make it big. It's like the difference between lighting a long burning fire or a short fused firecracker. With the long burning fire you get a little light for a long time but with a firecracker you can either get a spectacularly bright display that will get a lot of attention all at once or it can backfire and end rather horribly.

I thought it was interesting that while the NYT had the first problem the women of "DABA" had the second. The women were willing to go for broke and misrepresent their purpose in order to get a media boost. It seems to have paid off but with more negative backlash than they were expecting, I reckon. As for the poor NYT, they were expecting to be able to do this article with genuine interest and excitement but have come out of it looking like fools. I think it's probably worse that people pity them rather than just being mad at them.

If a blog want's to make it as a big blog it needs to maintain its credibility by ensuring legitimate sourcing. In the world of information the stakes are getting continually higher. Rule one of serious blogging or journalism or even argument says always make sure your sources are strong enough to back you up.