On Nov. 29, the story ran in Wales Online: “We thought we were safe… then CNN stepped in!” said the headline. As of this writing you can still find it listed in the site’s own search results — but the story itself is no longer available on Wales Online. According to excerpts of this mainstream news report that appeared on severalsites, the now-vanished Wales Online story began:
“A South Wales couple caught in the Mumbai terror attacks claimed last night that CNN put their lives at risk by broadcasting where they were. Lynne and Kenneth Shaw, of Penarth, warned that terrorists were listening in to the media to pinpoint Western victims. Mrs. Shaw claimed the American cable TV channel had broadcast details of where they were at the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel…”
Apparently, this particular claim of media irresponsibility wasn’t true. But when it first ran, even Tobin Harshaw of the New York Times repeated the allegation — although he did correct it this morning. That’s because the editor of Wales Online sent a note to Harbin (and conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, who harshly criticized CNN for it’s alleged misstep) which said:
“The story was taken from the Press Association news agency, who have since stated: ‘Press Association would like to make clear that the interviewee’s allegations that CNN broadcast details compromising her and her husband’s safety have since been clarified by the interviewee’s husband to Press Association as not valid.’ I would be grateful if you could post the above clarification. I should also let you know that the article has now been removed from WalesOnline.co.uk…”
Today Turner Broadcasting posted a CNN press release refuting the allegation. And Mediabistro’s TVNewser also ran updates with CNN’s refutation and the Press Association’s retraction.
According to CNN spokesperson Nigel Pritchard, when the Press Association contacted CNN for comment on the Shaw’s allegations, CNN issued a “holding statement” while they reviewed all their broadcast and streamed video from the relevant parts of the crisis. In the meantime, the Press Association account ran. When CNN found nothing to corroborate the Shaws’ alleged statements, they contacted the Press Association to refute those allegations. Shortly afterward, the Press Association story was retracted.
Problem solved? Not really. This false allegation is still spreading in ways that will remain findable over time. Thus it is likely to become a permanent part of the public recollection of the media and the Mumbai attacks unless all the players involved become very transparent with their corrections.
Right now, the key media organizations involved are acting as if this never happened — to varying degrees — by making information about this story-gone-awry hard to find. This is likely to confuse or frustrate Internet users, bloggers, and social media users who try to track down the truth, thus encouraging the spread of misinformation.
(UPDATE DEC. 3: When I originally posted this story, I reported “Wales Online simply removed the article from their site. As far as I can tell by searching their site, they have not yet published a correction or explanation. It’s simply gone, and inbound links to it are now broken.” Since then, Wales Online posted this correction at a different URL. As of this writing, the URL of the original story still remains blank, with no forwarding to or indication of the correction. Also, I received e-mails from Wales Online editor Tim Horton and Press Association editor Jonathan Grun — both of whom simply confirmed that the Press Association story was “not valid” and had “been removed.” As of this writing, the Press Association site still appears to bear no mention of the story or the retraction.)
Similarly, currently there is no mention of this incident on CNN.com — the first place where net users would probably turn for clarification. The Turner release is not even findable through the CNN.com site search engine.
Why not run a CNN.com story clarifying what the rumor was, that it is demonstrably false, and what CNN did to disprove it? Something that would be easy to find and link to? Pritchard says CNN has no plans to do this: “It’s not up to us to respond to false allegations.”
…That may have been true in an earlier era. But these days if you want to stop a rumor, your correction or refutation must be easily findable and linkable — because the rumor certainly will be.
If people will be coming to your site with questions about your coverage, it’s best to address them in an obvious, straightforward way. Failing to do so (or worse, making content “disappear”) only undermines confidence in news brands — and encourages rumors to spread.
