Vito Cassisi – Tech Blog Delving into technology

Journalistic Trolling

Not all errors are mistakes.

Journalism is a broad area of literature aimed at providing audiences with information, entertainment, and opinion. The journalists who create these pieces of writing for the masses are often closely scrutinised. That is, there will always be readers ready to pounce at the smallest of errors.

Many journalists, myself included, strive to produce work to the highest of their ability. References to trustworthy sources, clear differentiation between opinion and fact, and a passion to produce content as close to perfection as humanly possible, are traits that separate professionals from novices.

As much as one tries to create a functional written work, the introduction of subtle errors cannot always be identified before publishing. On occasion, such errors will slip by with little disruption to the flow and feedback of the piece. On the other hand, the mistake may be large, or has a close association with the audience. The result? Death by swarms of fanatic driven comments. It's like watching a tidal wave of text consume your written piece, thereby smashing it into small delectable parts - ready for 'expert' analysis.

And of course, by experts, I mean random unidentifiable inhabitants of the Internet. Equipped with Wikipedia quotes from the depths of the all-knowing information highway itself. Whether these zealots have reason to refute the article, or not, is hardly the concern. Whether they're zealots at all is also completely irrelevant. The concern lies with the original piece of writing, the author, and the publisher. Or to be more specific, their intentions.

The unfortunate reality when it comes to journalism is that not everyone cares about fact. Some journalists will intentionally mislead their readers by omitting information, taking aspects out of context, or by integrating far fetched opinions to otherwise analytical write-ups. It may look like an innocent mistake, or a lack of decent sources, and sometimes this may be the case - but the reality is, there are those who are doing it to piss you off.

Now why would a well known website, with many readers, want to intentionally aggravate people? It almost sounds counterproductive! The reason it's performed, and often, is to attract a response. I like to call this intriguing, yet unethical writing style 'journalistic trolling'.

It works much like a double edged sword. The initial error, manipulation, or whatever nasty trick the writer decides to play on, excites users who relate to the story at hand. A great example was the recent praise for Google OS, which according to some journalists, would be free of all the malicious entities which traditionally plague Windows. Apart from the fact that the OS is currently vapourware, Google themselves did not claim that the product would feature such immaculate security. To get back to the point, the readers become frenzied with a state of awe. Everyone wants to see the underdog succeed (if you can consider Google an underdog, but that's another matter altogether). And with this awe, comes the likeliness that the article will be referenced throughout the Internet.

Forums, social bookmaking services, news reels etc. all start to report the amazing 'news', which at the core is based on the very real fact that Google, to continue the example, are creating a new OS. Unfortunately, like a parasite to a host, the sneaky addition of these false claims get thrown into the mix. This is where it gets interesting.

Once the story has become moderately saturated throughout popular streams, the enthusiasts and zealots get involved. It's the nature of informed persons to combat red herrings so that they are hastily corrected, and in effect, dissected to great extent. This means going back to the original source of the false claims. Comments are thrown around, forums are informed to provoke discussion, and before you know it, the dodgy site/author which mutilated fact to create this alternate 'truth' is getting enough hits to make advertisers go gaga!

Meanwhile, legit sources get into action to dispel the false rumours. Eventually, those who actually care (i.e. the enthusiasts and zealots) read these reports to their satisfaction. But the news regarding Google OS is already old now! The ship has set sail, and there's not enough crazed hot air to propel the correction to the aforementioned social sites. Once the underlying news has died down, the scope of reachable users follows suit.

It leaves a nasty aftertaste of misinformation. One which lingers throughout the Internet, until misinformed users encounter the truth - typically in the form of forum users calling 'n00b', and eventually redirecting them to the correction. Which is where the double edged sword reference makes a return. The author/site/publisher gets their reputation tarnished by those in the know. Cry wolf too many times, and the industry will treat you like an immature child. Journalists are no exception.

In the end, it's a matter of locating trustworthy sources. Many sites will have an aura associated with them, just ask any reputable forum, and they'll point you to those which are worth their weight in silicon.

Beware of the trolls. And by all means, please don't feed them. :)