Will Folks is a high-profile dude. He used to be a spokesman for Mark Sanford. Now he runs a web site that features his takes, which are often irreverent and belligerent.
He also tries to dig up news. He hits. He misses. But it seems he always swings with a sneer and a figurative "screw you" to anyone who's offended.
It's his schtick, and apparently it hasn't gone over well with a lot of people. I'm sure some people would wince that I'm even dignifying his schtick by acknowledging him, but something happened yesterday I'm interested in exploring.
He made a Tweet that said a "major" investigation was underway at South Carolina. The implication, or at least the assumption by everyone who read it, was that the investigation was related to the NCAA's still-unresolved investigation of stuff that happened with the Gamecocks' football program.
I'm pretty new to this Tweeting game, having started my own account (@LarryWilliamsTI) this summer. I view it as similar to our message board: a forum to discuss stuff that's going on with Clemson while also presenting 140-character opinions of other stuff of interest to me and my followers.
To me, Folks' tweet fell under the "other stuff of interest" category. One of our subscribers thought so as well, relaying it on our message board and starting a lengthy discussion among Clemson fans wondering what it could be ... and yes, hoping like heck the Gamecocks were going to get rocked by the NCAA.
So I retweeted it to my followers, citing the source of the tweet. I noted that it was the same source that was basically right with a story several months ago reporting Gamecocks QB Stephen Garcia had spent a night ... how to put this ... channeling his inner Wilt Chamberlain in Atlanta as the Gamecocks were preparing for last season's Chick-fil-A Bowl.
(Fair criticism: I should've also noted an instance in which he was wrong. Or at least a "consider the source" or something to that effect.)
Folks later tweeted that his alleged bombshell had nothing to do with the NCAA or the football team, and I made note of that in a tweet. He also noted that he was doggedly investigating rumors of Clemson's "super secret Florida Connection," and I retweeted that too.
Some people would say this dude is a total clown and should be ignored at all times. Others might say he's a high-profile figure whose alleged scoops should be noted.
I don't think there's a right or a wrong to this. But here's where I think I stand:
The court of public opinion is pretty powerful these days. Not long ago, when a newspaper goofed on a big 1A story it could bury its retraction on page 3 and get away with it. Now, if you screw up on something there's really nowhere to hide. If there's nothing to this story, the condemnation of Folks will be just as viral (and probably more so) than the spreading of his alleged scoop. He'll be humiliated and exposed as a scumbag (some would say such exposure has occurred long before now).
Some people say a retweet is an endorsement or confirmation of the initial tweet, that you darn well better be sure it's true if you retweet it. I strongly disagree. It's only an endorsement or a confirmation if you ... endorse or confirm it. If you make clear who is reporting what, then to me it's not much different than standard attribution in other forms of delivering news.
A radio talk show host might say: "Joe Schad of ESPN just reported Texas is going to the Pac-10 and the Big 12 is on the verge of implosion." It is not up to the radio host to verify the authenticity of Schad or Schad's report. Schad, not the radio host or anyone else, has ownership of this story and will look good/bad depending on the story's truth/untruth.
The Texas A&M/SEC story appears to have some serious legs. But it was at the "rumor" stage for quite a while. As a reporter, is it my duty to completely stay away from answering questions and discussing possible ramifications of such a development if I can't confirm it? That sounds like fantasy land to me.
Again, there's no right answer or wrong answer to this. The present and future of news gathering and dissemination is wild, wacky and even scary.
But if it's on us to vet the truth and authenticity of everything that's out there before we discuss it, then that's a darned slippery slope.
Thoughts?
LW
No comments:
Post a Comment