GamerDad And The Action News Team

Last week we reported on a travesty of journalism; A local newsteam decrying the Pictochat DS program for being dangerous to children. Well, it turns out that respected family gaming site GamerDad actually told them they were wrong before they even reported the story. From the article: "When contacted for the story, I talked for a good fifteen minutes about the possibility of this situation occurring and what might have to take place to facilitate it. I specifically explained that turning on the DS in a public place has never turned up a Pictochatter. Never. I've tried a bunch of times to see if anyone attempts to use it in public. I also said at least three or four times that Pictochat was not Internet enabled, even after I received a call-back asking if it were possible for this to happen at one of Philadelphia's 'Wi-Fi hotspots' which are also mentioned in the article."

before we get all pissy....

[Steve_Jobs_HNIC]

It's possible she just didn't understand how the unit worked (yeah, she shouldn't have went ahead with the story), but I'm not so sure her mistake was intentional. I'd like to hear her side of the story.

My guess would be that she had conflicting information and went ahead with what the parents had told her.

Truth doesn't sell.

[dubiousx99]

Though sensationalized drama does.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Muckraking

[drewzhrodague]

Journalists do this muckraking to raise controversy, and stir up the pot. I had the same kinda thing talking to local reporters about wardriving -- "Ooh, hackers spamming everyone from open Wi-Fi spots!" You tell them one thing, and they'll figure out what makes their story sensationalized. Then you hear the story, and learn that they ignored what you told them, even if you tried hard to make your point clear.

I think the best thing to do is to talk to the reporters. It is up to them to quote you properly, and get the story straight.

Re:before we get all pissy....

[faloi]

My guess would be that she had conflicting information and went ahead with what the parents had told her.

And my guess would be she had conflicting information and decided that it would sell better if she uncovered some horrible problem that proved the children needed saving. I'd say her mistake was 100% intentional, regardless of how you look at it. Either she had conflicting stories and went ahead to boost her career knowing she was likely wrong, or she had conflicting stories and decided not to dig any deeper before going forward with the story. Either way, she was wrong.

Re:before we get all pissy....

[nege]

My guess would be that she had conflicting information and went ahead with what the parents had told her.

Typically when these things happen the independent jounalist covers that side of the story too. In the face of this conflicting evidence she chose the story that would sell more: "Oh noes! Your kids are in daaaaaanger!".

i don't get it

[rabbot]

I wonder why competing news stations don't publish stories about how competitors outright lie to the public when they put out garbage like this Pictochat article. I guess it would trigger the end of the world.