How to close the honesty gap between bloggers and newspapers?

Last week Twitter reported The Mirror had ‘tweeted’ online that Phil Spector (music producer jailed for murder), had used Twitter to complain that his wig was confiscated in jail. The story was a high profile news piece….however, one snag – it wasn’t true!

The day after the story broke, ‘Phil Spector’ (aka the anonymous person behind the Twitter comments), revealed it was infact a prank. This is all very well…but of course, Mirror readers did not/do not know. After all, they have read and consumed the story, and most likely spread it by word-of-mouth and in their own online forums also.

So the story remains on the web, and further irate user comments stoking the flames of controversy: "What's Phil Spector – or any other convicted murderer for that matter - doing with a computer in jail?...Spector should have no such luxuries…”

The Telegraph covered the story twice – firstly believing the joke and running with the headline: ‘Phil Spector complains about prison confiscating his wig on Twitter’, then running the blog practical joke revelation story separately after – with no correction or link to let readers know it is inaccurate at all.

So how come mainstream media do not follow this rule?

A recent example pointed out by Martin Belam (Currybetdot.net) where local newspaper, Birmingham Mail, blogged inaccurately on an ex-Aston Villa footballer –  yet instead of ignoring this, the journalist acknowledged and corrected her own article, ensuring she did not edit/remove any inaccuracies but simply, honestly and openly corrected the mistakes.

With content freeloading being an issue for newspapers, copyright issues for Google, as well as blogging – often blamed on providing opinion and getting factual evidence for free – should we trust everything we read? Traditional journalism is not always quick to correct, remove or apologise for inaccuracies – unlike digital journalists who are perhaps more instant and honest with their reactions.

Of course it is becoming more frequent for ordinary people to reveal breaking news (citizen journalism) ahead of the media (via twitter/camera phones etc), but surely it is common practise for well regarded media brands to conduct themselves via a set of journalistic principles which moderate breaking news fast and accurately….which in theory, is why this source should be more trusted.

Who will be the first to report if/when Gordon Brown leaves government? And if/when you do read this news….you might want to make sure it is infact true before you announce it to your friends and colleagues, shout it out on twitter, or blog to your clients about it…