I cringe every time that I see rumors, hoaxes and urban legends posted to journalism listserves in unsourced e-mails.
Now, it is Jamie Foxx
A couple of months ago it was Kanye West
What's next?
My answer to the question was to ban anyone else that posted a rumor, hoax or urban legend to a journalism listserve that I moderate.
It is bad journalism. Period.
Without mentioning anyone by name, I am compelled to reveal some of the negative feedback that I received over the e-polluting of this Jamie Foxx thing.
One person said "Please don't ban me from the listserv. A journalist from USA Today sent this to me. Like most of us, I didn't have time to fact check this, but it seemed like an interesting bit of news. But, I must say, I'm "in the know" and have heard nothing about this special. My sincere apologies."
Another person said "Stop being a Nazi, Bro. Obviously, that person sent the email before reading their inbox. I know your job is thankless, but have a heart. :)
Yet another person said. "As for the person who got booted, that seems kind of cold. Why not a personal warning to that person or a temporary suspension? I'm sure you have your reasons.
I don't believe someone would do that intentionally. (maybe I'm wrong and apparently ignorance is still not an excuse) Also for the person who posted the same Jamie Foxx hoax, suppose they had not read all of the e-mails before posting? Sometimes I don't get a chance to read all the emails everyday or even every couple of days. I'm not sure. Just thought I'd put this out there.
I think you do a great job as moderator, and I'm not trying to be overly critical or anything like that. I know you go through tons of emails. You've defintely helped the 'serv become more effecient and effective. For that I am very grateful. I know hoax and other annoying emails make it difficult to conduct the 'serv smoothly. But I'd just hate for people to be unable to experience the benefits of this 'serv if they are booted off. "
I received plenty of positive support for this decision but I decided not to post it here. Seriously, I couldn't help but saying AMEN when I saw another e-mail from a listserver from a different listserve on this same topic.
That person said "what do we have to do to get folks to A) Stop believing this mess and B) To stop creating e-pollution by passing it around? I continue to be amazed by people I consider to be otherwise very savvy and intelligent (journalists,even) falling time and again for stuff like this."
I have already drawn that line and I'm hoping no one else crosses it.
11 comments:
Get 'em, SP! Kick 'em all off! I hate reading BS. That whole Jamie Foxx thing: do you really believe that any network would intentionally lose money? I mean, they may not have marketed as much for this particular event simply because they knew, after RAY, that Jamie Foxx could attract his own crowd w/o investing unnecessary advertising dollars, thereby maximizing their revenue. After RAY and a host of other movies he's done, he is a blockbuster performer in his own right. And, I'm just glad he's finally gaining recognition for his musical talents (which is what his initial goal was starting out - and for which he received a full scholarship to attend college)
man Sherlon, I was tempted to mark it as spam, but then I remembered the community is vital to me like weave is to Beyonce, so I chilled and waited for you to lay the smackdown. Urban legends and e-mail hoaxes grate my hide.
1) The fact that the Jamie Foxx e-mail was a hoax was very much unclear for an extended period.
2) Has the person who said, "I didn't have time to fact check" taken a basic journalism course? What the heck happened to accuracy as a primary objective?
3) I agree that the rules of the listserv need to be forced in order to maintain order.
4) I think you have a thankless job.
5) I agree that the older journos need to be more compassionate, a bit softer with the tongue, and sensitive to the learning curve involving aspirants like myself.
Alright, Imma be the naysayer on your blog. Sherlon, I agree you have a thankless job, but I disagree with banning people from the listserve for passing along forwards. I'm not defending the journalism aspect of it because there is no excuse for spreading unsubstantiated fact, but I do believe that people should be given second chances and that overall, the listserve is a learning, networking and support system. You can't get the benefits if you've been banned. I think my problem is with the whole banning of people - like the listserve is some almighty organization that can discriminate against its members. If you make one mistake, you're blackballed. Kinda sucks. And I disagree. But, that's just my opinion. You're going to do what you please. So, moderate on, brotha. Moderate on.
@chris...I'm glad you used some restraint on the Jamie Foxx thing. As journalists, we must read with a critical eye.
@cnel...I wanted to shake that person till their head pop for that "I didn't have time to fact line." I was like you have got to be shitting me...right?
@talia...Discrimination? Whoa...that's a high charge and that would imply bias against a specific person or group. Neither is remotely true. The learning, networking and support system hasn't changed. In fact, I have vastly improved those aspects since last Feb. Now, not every decision you make as a leader will be a favorable one. I never regret any decision I make as long as I can defend it. At some point, you have to say enough is enough and put your foot down so people will you are absolutely serious. This time I am. I expect to receive forwards like that from family and friends...not from journalists or future journalists on a JOURNALISM LISTSERVE. I gave a subtle warning two months ago when the Kanye West nonsense was disproven. This time, I felt it was time to slam the door shut on this kind of irresponsible e-pollution. Harsh? Probably. I figured that people valued being on the listserve more than e-polluting. The listserve is a priviledge not a right. So, I gave people an easy choice.
i laughed for a second when Chris refers to what you do as a "job" The fact is its not a job yet the listserve for some reason is treated that way. As someone who has been banned from the listserv for not following one of the many rules, I think it shys away a lot of people to even post on the damn thing. There are over 500 members on the listserve yet you get the same people who are the only ones posting. The whole "You have one shot, don't fuck up" mentality is not a conducive one if you want people to post.
The fact is while you might think we are all journalists or people label themselves as journalists, not all of us are there yet. A lot of the people on the listserve are still in college and just because they are on the listserve doesn't autmoatically qualify them as journalists. It's a learning process and instead of being a teacher, you are being judge, jury and executioner.
Okay, maybe discrimination was the wrong word. But, in some way, I can't help but think of what you're doing as censorship. People do and say stupid things every day. Being a journalist doesn't make you immune to that fact. I know you call it e-pollution, but who are we to dictate what people can and can't say? I thought this was a free country. Maybe I was wrong.
yessssssssssssss!! that's some hotness!! i've told several friends they will be cut off for sending me the b.s. i don't give my email address out to the world for a reason. i don't want the crap. THANK YOU!!
and i'm rolling my eyes at the comments. again. JOURNALISM is the key word. no b.s. forwards please and thank you. is that difficult?
I'll have to go back and read it, but I thought the person that posted this particular email on the listserve was asking if anyone had written about it. Or maybe it was the first person to reply to it. But true enough, it shouldn't have been spread, until everything had been checked out, especially to a journalism listserve. I didn't get emails about it, but the first time I read it somewhere it was less than 5 minutes after I saw a commercial for the show. Now I don't know how you go about determining who's booted, but I bet people forget the guidelines. or was this person new since the guidelines had been posted again? I think a second warning would be better, and wouldn't keep people from being bitter or scare them away from posting.
The guidelines were sent via e-mail to everyone this morning...I hope everyone reads them.
@talia & vandy...Tell me you read the Jamie Foxx hoax e-mail word for word and the Kanye West hoax e-mail word for word. Not a single person or organization that is directly involved is quoted on the record or even confirms or denies the charge in either e-mail. Red Flag No. 1. The person or thing that is spreading this hoax e-mail doesn't a) identify themselves or b) indentify themselves and tell us why they have beef. Red Flag No. 2.
We don't need to burn 30 e-mails for something that was blatantly suspicious from the jump. The e-mails falls into the same pattern and I've tried to explain that over and over again. I even posted two links of popular urban legend websites that debunk plenty of crazy stuff that has been going around the internet for years.
At some point you have to ween off the nipple.
Post a Comment