The New Journalism
Boing Boing’s entire article:
“This inquisitive fellow was unable to keep his hands off a delicate museum piece hanging from the wall at the National Watch & Clock Museum. After breaking it, he lost interest and walked away, leaving his companion to clean up the mess.”
Description on the video, posted directly by the museum itself:
“This is why we beg and plead with our visitors to please refrain from touching objects in museums. The couple did notify Museum staff immediately.”
A few points:
- So in fact, after breaking it, the guy didn’t “lose interest and walk away”, but actually went to notify museum staff. Which means Boing Boing managed to get the story entirely wrong.
- Getting the story entirely wrong is especially impressive when it consists of just two sentences and an embedded video.
- From this, I think we can safely say: not even bothering to read the description attached to a video when you intend to write something about it is not recommended practice.
- The incorrect information has been pointed out in the site’s comments, but the article has not been corrected or updated to reflect this.
- Oh, and the article is a duplicate of one posted on the site two and a half weeks before. Except that the original piece got the details correct.
Still, aside from that, excellent work Boing Boing.
Oh, and did I mention that the writer of the piece works as a Research Director?