dragonsqrrl :
scolaner :
While Tom's has been woefully wrong in the past, If you have conflicting sources, post them so Tom's could follow up and possible correct their article if they are wrong.
Hmmm, unfortunately I haven't known Tom's to have the greatest track record when it comes to the accuracy of information in their news articles either. Actually that's being too generous, their news articles have had a terrible track record in my experience. Maybe that's changed recently, I wouldn't know.
I'm not claiming that Tom's is wrong, but if they're right, I would be surprised...
That's quite a thing to say. I strongly disagree.
It is, but unfortunately it has been my experience as well as the experience of many others who have frequented the news articles here on Tom's over the past few years. Although this is far from the worst offense, there was an example of it in this very article. This isn't meant as a direct jab at you, I actually have no idea who you are or how long you've been an editor on this site, but the general attitude I've experienced has been one of indifference to even basic standards of journalistic integrity. Corrections are rarely made, even when multiple comments point them out. And when corrections are made or articles taken down entirely it's done without any sort of retraction or effort to inform the readership. In fact one of the only authors I've known to make corrections in their news articles and engage the readers in the comments has been N.Broekhuijsen. Now I haven't read many news articles on Tom's recently, for this very reason, but up till I would say 2014, this was very much the case.
I am a bit surprised though, this is the first time I've ever had a dialogue with any of the staff about this issue. I just assumed after a few years that no one really cared enough to even make an effort to deny it.
(We're rabbit-trailing a bit here, but...)
I came to TH and took over as News Director about 11 months ago, so I can only speak to that time period. Perhaps you're completely correct about the way things were done in the past, I don't know.
I can tell you, though, that none of what you're asserting is currently the case. We always update articles if and when there are errors, even little typos, and when we do, we make a note at the bottom of the post. If it's a large enough update (whether there was an error or just new info to include), we'll even add a note to the headline and re-publish.
We care about *all of it*. We care what commenters say. We do engage much more now (apparently) than we did before. Our desire, and the thing we work toward every day, is to be the best source of tech news and reviews, period.
That takes a lot of blood, sweat and tears, and it takes smart, dedicated people that buy into that idea. I'm extremely proud of our growing news team. These guys work incredibly hard, and they put the time in to know their stuff and to run down as many details as possible on every story. We're constantly badgering companies we cover for more information, for clarifications, and so on.
Speaking of journalistic integrity, we also spend a lot of time internally discussing and debating what to post, and how. I can't tell you how many times we've killed stories because we felt, ultimately, that it wasn't worthwhile to cover, or we couldn't substantiate or debunk a claim someone else made, or what have you. It takes time and effort, and it costs money (nobody's time is free) to run those things down, and sometimes the end result it that we don't post the story. We routinely sacrifice clicks for the sake of integrity.
You can't believe everything you read on the Internet--there's a mountain of false rumors, leaks, and flat-out poor research out there. We want TH to be a site where you CAN believe everything you read on here, because we've done our due diligence on every story.
And if and when we make a mistake, we correct it.
Speaking of, we're so far down the rabbit trail here that I don't even remember what it was that you thought we got wrong in this article. (Seriously, I thought other commenters addressed it?)