« Sometimes, "Huh?" is all you got | Main | "On Time" is not the new "Delayed" »
Oh wait, no, they aren't.
Engadget can't even admit that they got what looked juicy, and instead of taking the steps to verify it, or even QUESTION it, they published it. Great fact checking folks. Hearst would be proud. I love this bit of justification that makes this a non-apology:
Here's the story. A trustworthy source supplied us with an actual internal Apple email that went out to thousands of Apple employees earlier today (published after the break). The fact that this was an email sent within Apple's internal email system to its employees is not in question. Let us reiterate: this was an ACTUAL email distributed within Apple's internal email system to Apple employees.
Somehow, I doubt Engadget's ever going to publicize their rigorous verification methods that proved the legitimacy of a fakeout beyond doubt. In fact, I'd love to know how they can prove without doubt where any email originates from, without chance of fakery. If they have such a system, they're about to become very, very, rich.
Good job.
Morons.
Technorati Tags: Apple, Engadget - Morons, TEH STOOPUD
Posted by John C. Welch at 11:20 | Permalink
Comments
Indeed. In fact the whole idea of using emails in legal proceedings is something of a joke. I can create any email I wish, right out of plan old ASCII, with complete headers, messageID's, routing, timestamps, etc. It will say anything I want it to say, or anything I want somebody ELSE to say, presto! Just. Like. That.
You could even go so far as to setup a "server" with properly offset time sets, relay some mail through it and your target's servers, manipulate some ASCII on the result, and make it very authentic looking.
And since it is merely ASCII, like every other email, unless you have log-level access to every box it says it touched, you can't really PROVE that it is, or isn't legitimate.
In order to PROVE authenticity ALL the equipment in question would have to be seized and forensically examined.
This is why I tell people to NOT backup mailservers. I tell them to aggressively roll their logs. And make it a stated policy.
Thankfully I operate in an industry where that is acceptable.
Emails are just like photographs... don't believe them, as they are too easy to alter, edit after the fact, and manipulate to be whatever you want them to be.
--chuck
Posted by: chuck goolsbee | May 17, 2007 11:50 AM
Oh, and as for Endgaget's "journalistic integrity" (or lack thereof) all I have to say is: I guess that "trusted source" really shouldn't be trusted eh?
--chuck
Posted by: chuck goolsbee | May 17, 2007 11:54 AM
What? You mean even if the email address stated ends in "@apple.com" you should somehow doubt it's origin? My Lord, man, what kind of cynical world are we living in?!!!!
I think "morons" is an understatement.
Posted by: Nima | May 17, 2007 12:26 PM
What I find interesting is Engadget claims that thousands of Apple employees got the bogus email-which is not even noted as being private, since it talks about a press release.
And only one of them leaked it, and it happened to be to Engadget?
1) Apple is much tighter than I thought leakwise-although its not even a "secret" email.
2) Others had the leak, but were prudent enough to start double checking.
and most intriguing:
3) Thousands didn't get the email, only a few did, including Engadget's "trusted" source, who must be sweating bullets.
Posted by: FactChecking | May 17, 2007 1:47 PM
Engadget may have profited from whatever was thrown its way, but lots of other bloggers immediately pointed to this article, driving its exposure higher.
A whole segment of the blogosphere was shown to have fatal errors here, not just Engadget.
Posted by: John Dowdell | May 17, 2007 5:14 PM
but lots of other bloggers immediately pointed to this article
So? Is every single blogger supposed to call up Apple to verify the story?
That's what makes the difference between Engadget and "lots of other bloggers".
Posted by: Nima | May 17, 2007 6:57 PM
John, it illustrates my distaste for the "blogosphere". It's trying to pass itself off as relevant, yet, in the end, it's a big echo chamber. The reason no one else did any better than engadget was because it would never occur to them to do so. The "blogosphere" talks all this shit about how they're better at "news" than Main Stream Media, when in fact, all the ever do is an infinitely long game of telephone.
Posted by: John C. Welch | May 17, 2007 10:19 PM
See, I think I disagree with where Engadget went wrong, here. Sometimes one source is all you've got, and you have to run with it.
The problem isn't their retraction, it's the original article.
you shouldn't say 'it is delayed' when you can say 'is it delayed?' and refer to the internal email - it would cover your ass, and you can do this without revealing your source.
Furthermore, if the memo mentions a press release, check the press release page on apple's website. If it isn't there, you can still publish the story, but point out that the relese isn't there. If they'd done that, they'd have a perfect platform to continue the story regardless of the email being a spoof or genuine.
I'm amazed the no-press release thing didn't seem to ring any alarm bells at all, or if it did, that they still decided to claim that they had the story 'on authority'.
If you're pertaining to be a journalist, you should be reporting stories in an unbiased manner, but you should also be very careful not to state something as truth which is not yet confirmed. A press release is confirmation, but that also means that by the time it's released it's not really news - certainly not exclusive. Well, that's OK, if you pitch it right.
Posted by: Tom Hillman | May 19, 2007 6:23 AM
Those are all good points Tom. There were lots of things they could have done to point out that this is a single unverifiable source, that it's just an email, and even inside of Apple, email is easily spoofed, etc., yadda. Instead, they did what they did.
Posted by: John C. Welch | May 19, 2007 6:11 PM
