The Internet has brought the world a multitude of avenues to obtain information, making the getting of information more convenient and easy than ever before. Additionally, it has made the creation of information just as easy. This double-sided sword means that anyone–journalists included–has to screen their sources more comprehensively than before. In some cases, it can be extremely difficult to validate the authenticity of a source. But the internet has its fair share of obvious red herrings, as well.
Take the satirical article about Kei Nishikori done by Media Mass. ESPN’s Chris Fowler had used that satirical article, taking it as fact. He claimed that Nishikori was the highest-paid tennis player in the world, a “surprise to Roger Federer fans.” Fowler goes on to say, “according to published reports,” implying there were other reports that corroborated Media Mass’s satire. Simply looking at the the original article on Media Mass cries out a humorous need for fact checking. “It’s been a rough year for the tennis player, but at least he has his millions of dollars to ease the pain,” isn’t a particularly professional lead, but it does lead the reader in humorously questioning the validity of the article.
Aside from the lead, almost every little fact begs to be googled, and most don’t need much digging to confirm or deny if it’s true. Googling “Fat Nishikori,” “From Kei with Love” or even “Kei Nishikori CoverGirl” will yield results that could mildly be described as questionable. The single fact that might have needed some actual digging would be confirming if Nishikori made more than $20 million over the second-highest paid tennis player, and even then, the truth behind the satire would come to the computer screen’s light very quickly.
The Huffington Post interview with Jesus Christo on Twitter is a different story. Granted, the source’s name on Twitter is questionable enough, but his name could have been anything, something more believable. Social media in general has made it incredibly easy to pretend to be other people without any form of validation. Conducting interviews over social media seems like a plan that should be labeled “what to do after the last resort fails,” and even then, giving up almost seems like a better option. Making contact over social media is one thing, but it should be used to request an interview, not conduct one. Face-to-face would obviously be ideal, but it’s always possible that someone on Twitter doesn’t live nearby.
At the very least, a phone interview or, as a last resort, an email interview request would have been better than conducting it over social media. although it would be just as easy to continue the Jesus Christo facade over email or the phone, it creates more of a sense of authenticity. Furthermore, I would ask him if there would be anyone to talk to that could corroborate his alibi; was he really there at the shooting? If I’m the only source for any story, I could easily be the first man to have stepped foot on Pluto. When finding sources online, validating their story through other people with authority should always be done, and even then, it should be done with a grain of salt. Information obtained online should be labeled as such so all readers know that there is a possibility of it being a hoax.