Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannager" data-source="post: 5653953" data-attributes="member: 73683">If those criticisms have merit that would change the tone or message of your reporting if noted, yes.If a full disclosure would necessitate changing your headline or article in a substantive way, your headline and article probably need to be changed.I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I have no doubt that you're trying to find some hypocrisy in my criticism, but it doesn't really matter. The fact that I might be inconsistent (though I'd like to think that I'm not) doesn't change the fact that you're the one writing the article.You have two options: either avoid citing sources, and let your statements stand on their own, or cite sources and suffer the burden of integrating those sources into your article in a responsible manner. The way in which you used the ICv2 report was not responsible. It ought to have been heavily disclaimed, by you. Linking to the report does not absolve you of the responsibility of accurate reporting.To draw an analogy, this would be like a journalist using the headline "Apples Found to Carry Deadly Disease" and linking to an article which reports that a handful of apples from a particular farm in Pennsylvania were found to carry some toxic bacteria. If the journalist made it sound like the report applied to all apples everywhere, it really doesn't matter whether or not he links to the article.You're the reporter. Maintaining the fidelity of the information you report is your responsibility. A reader shouldn't have to go poring over your sources to figure out what they really mean.If I said "Pathfinder is beating D&D in sales according to limited interviews with some hobby store owners!" and you cited me as having said that Pathfinder is beating D&D, it would be irresponsible of you to not mention that I was speaking in a very limited fashion.I mean, if I were someone at ICv2, I would be upset with you for making it seem as though the scope of my report's conclusions were many times wider than in actuality.That's not the point - ICv2 acknowledges the limits of their report, because that's how responsible reporting works.I'm not going to dispute the source because there's no problem with the source. The ICv2 report is fine, for what it is. It lists its findings and disclaims its own limitations. The problem is with you citing the ICv2 report as though it proves the thrust of your article. It doesn't.Again, my problem is not with the source. My problem is with you trying to make the source article say something that it is not saying.I don't think there's any doubt in anyone's mind that it's important to cite the ICv2 report's limitations. It's a very small, non-representative slice of a very large industry pie. You have made it sound as though it is an abundantly representative look at the entire industry.Your journalistic integrity speaks for itself. You can choose to bolster it, or not. Either way, there is no bullying going on. I am telling you that you are responsible for the accuracy of your own reporting, and pointing out that you are neglecting that responsibility for at least part of the article in question.Yes, I could. I wanted to impress upon you the need for a bit of touch-up work on the article first, and allow you the opportunity to correct it yourself.</blockquote>

Verification