Robert McLaws at LonghornBlogs has a lengthy post this morning entitled Journalistic Integrity Revisited.
It says some complimentary things about me and some very unflattering things about Paul Thurrott.
I’d let it go, except that Paul decided to chime in with a comment to Robert’s post that takes a few cheap shots at me. I’m not a journalist, says Paul, along with a bunch of other name-calling.
Well, I guess I’ll have to give back my awards from the Computer Journalists Press Association [real-time fact-checking!] and the American Business Press Association. That’s OK, it was a pain in the ass finding a box to pack them in every time I move.
Anyway, I don’t care if someone wants to call me a journalist. I’m much more concerned with my reputation for accuracy and honesty. I don’t post as often here as some people would like, precisely because I try to make sure that what I post is truthful and accurate.
I’m pretty picky about whose RSS feeds and Web sites I read regularly. I like people who are passionate and willing to take risks. I have no patience for people who aren’t willing to give credit to others or to check their facts.
In his comment, Paul says, “I worked with Microsoft to uncover what happened here. I had used two sources for the original article I wrote, and so didn’t use terms like ‘according to reports…’ or similar, which generally accompany such things.”
Ahem. That’s not what my sources at Microsoft tell me. Two sources? Please. If that’s true, those people lied to Paul and he ought to delete their names from his address book. I have some pretty good sources at Microsoft too, and when I called, I couldn’t find a single person who had ever heard of anything remotely like this story. Because it’s a complete fabrication.
In fact, one contact at Microsoft yesterday complained that they had to call Paul to complain about the story and that he didn’t want to run a correction because it would be “embarrassing.”
Oh, Paul also says Robert Scoble isn’t a journalist either. “Frankly,” says Paul, “he hasn’t been at this very long.” [Robert McLaws says Paul was probably referring to him, not to Scoble. Probably right. Still laughable, as Robert M. has been building an excellent reputation online for three years now.]
Pardon me. I’ll need a minute to compose myself. And would you people in the blogosphere please stop laughing so loud?
Longhornblogs.com and the Scobleizer are both on my daily must-read list. I read Paul’s stuff whenever someone else links to it.
‘Nuff said.
Ed Bott 
Thanks for the link :). Actually, he was saying that I haven’t been at this very long, not Scoble. And I haven’t, if three years isn’t a long time.
I left some comments for Paul in reply to what he said. Apparently, you and I aren’t good enough in Pauls eyes to be journalists. Oh well.
Well, then, you’ve been blogging almost as long as Scoble!
Ladies and Gentlemen… in the white corner, weighing in at 185 pounds, wearing the shorts with the Longhorn bull on them… the mean lean Windows machine Eddie Bott… and in the red corner, wearing the little Windows Flag shorts, weighing in at.. well nevermind.. the SuperSite stallion, Paul Thurrott!
Two hours later.
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding… and the winner by a knockout is…. EDDDDDDIEEEEEEE BOTTTTTTTTTTT!
(Crowd and Scoble goes wild)
Fade out.
Hey, Thomas – get over here and clean the coffee off my monitor, wouldja?
Well, maybe Paul Thurrott is a real journalist, let’s give him a chance to prove it. All of this would be put straight if he would just tell us his two sources. If he won’t do that, I propose that he be thrown in jail for 90 days for contempt of credibility. I think Judith Miller’s recently vacated cell is still available.
If Thurrott spills the beans on his two sources, we expose a pair of liars. If he doesn’t, he ends up in jail. Win-win!
In his retraction, Paul finally gives
creditblame where credit is due. His followup article doesn’t mention that he wrote an erroneous article; instead, in what may be a first, he credits someone else with getting the scoop, referring only to “a report that first appeared in “The Business.”Robert McLaws makes two interesting points: 1) “Since when did blogging trump journalistic integrity?”; and 2) “Ranting aside, this brings up the need for some integrity in what we do here.”
Does blogging automatically qualify as journalism? Just because someone writes something on a blog, does that make them a journalist? By no stretch of the imagination do I consider myself a journalist just because I write about some topic on my blog. Besides, there are various forms of journalism. Bloggers need to be clear about the purpose of their blog.
There has been a tendency by some in the media – and some in the blogosphere – to overhype blogging as the next best thing in the world of media and journalism. Some view blogging as a means of directly challenging corporate media. I think the ‘wild west frontier’ nature and attitude of the blogosphere has inflated the ego of some bloggers – ‘I am a blogger, hear me roar’. Afterall, supposedly we cannot trust the corporate or mainstream media, so what is written in the blogosphere must be true!
But McLaws hits the nail on the head: it’s about integrity. Those bloggers that want their blog to be a bit more than a place to rant and vent, that truly want to challenge corporate media, should be striving to ensure that integrity is their number one goal. Fact checking is vital. Honesty is vital. Giving credit is vital. Acknowledging your mistakes is vital.