Wednesday, November 4, 2009

corrections vs. clarifications?


CNBC made a whopper of a mistake and never apologized and don't intend to. I think saying "we're sorry" helps, and when its not done then it hurts the credibility of the profession.

Here's the link to the article and the video of what happened.

We're not going to apologize.

5 comments:

jkl said...

Well, that is pretty flagrant. I wonder if their thinking is along the same lines as the article we read where the journalist said that the viewers should just expect that the breaking news is a work in progress. Seems sloppy to me, and certainly caused harm to the stock! CNBC is very reputable as well. I wonder why they chose to dig in their heels about this particular error.

Michael Sweeney said...

I always wonder how much past relationships with the content and subject of the news affects decision making in situations such as these. It'd be interesting to find if CNBC had any sort of prior conflicts with Microsoft.

Clarifications are just a correction that can't let go of it's sense of pride. An inflated sense of pride, in this case. Simply correcting an error without acknowledging your blunder is egotistic.

valerie said...

How arrogant of CNBC!That is the ultimate , to think your above admitting and acknowledging a mistake.Especially one that had such an impact.

A correction and apology would have been the ethical and proper way to handle this ,and would have given their viewers a feeling that they were concerned with reporting erroneous information!

Deana Ste. Marie said...

I think this all plays into the discussion of this "new" world and type of media we are constantly exposed to. The need to get information to the public at lightening speed does lead to error. (and its understandable in many cases) But the error does need to be corrected.

Honestly, the amount of time it would have taken to offer a correction would be minimal compared to the effect of blatantly disregarding accurate information to the public.

I think that Michael brings up an interesting point and i certainly agree. Past relationships have a place (valid or not) in news. The relationships we build with sources, the government, local police- all have a role on the news we publish, like it or not! :)

Alex.S said...

Claiming "they sort of corrected the error on air" is inexcusable.

CNBC should have acknowledged their mistake and apologized for releasing erroneous information regarding Microsoft stock, which slammed the NASDAQ on air.

Megan, I think CNBC's highly regarded reputation, maybe a factor which induced them to deny this mistake.