Joshua Topolsky makes a great point regarding “bot journalism.”
“…you may be discerning, but most people aren’t, and most people will take a story like this — poorly sourced, poorly written — and digest it as fact. Now, there’s nothing particularly inaccurate about this piece of news — except that it’s written like garbage and essentially cites no sources. Plus, most media outlets reported on this last week, so why is it front page news now? And why does the article refer to “reviewers” when no one has actually used or reviewed the device? And who the fuck is Bruce Emmerling?”
The article he’s referring to is rife with spelling and grammatical errors and inaccuracies like:
“The [Nook] was recently released by Barnes & Noble with their on line store to much acclaim.”
Wrong. It was announced, not released. Huge difference.
“Reviewers are give the ebook high praise for its features including a a color touch screen, zoom-able text sizes, WiFi access, and 2GB memory storage.”
A 3-minute hands-on at a press event is hardly a review. As of this writing, the Nook has not been reviewed. Dec. 6th: Technologizer has posted a review.
“…the Nook is a newcomer to the field. It was released in November along with an ebook store on the Barnes & Noble website.”
Wrong again. The problem here isn’t that Mr. Emmerling needs a copy editor. It’s that his post topped Google News for a time. Mr. Emmerling isn’t entirely at fault here, though. There’s tremendous pressure to be the first to post technology news. In the rush, thoughtful analysis often takes a back seat. I’d rather post a well-researched, well written (and properly edited) post 24 hours after the fact than have Google distribute my up-to-the-second embarrassment.