ok, so we all know www.news.com.au is about as reliable as new weekly for real news content. heres another example of why they are so unreliable. (from media watch last nite, im extra interested in this story, coz i got suckered by the original story sending it onto mates)

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2256090.htm

heres how it goes down:

website wants more traffic;

website hires SEO company (search engine optimisation), who write TOTALLY FAKE BUT SUPER EXCITING news story (this one was the 13yo who stole dads credit cards to buy hookers to play video games with)

SEO company pimps fake news story on social networking sites, such as digg and internets world goes nuts for story, resulting in super extra traffic for original website!
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/img/2008/ep15/credit11.jpg

so now i guess we have to start snopesing and SEOlinkbait checking any super popular news stories being reported in internets land (and im sure it made it to paper papers, someone woudl have to confirm that for me coz i dont read paper papers anymore)

Yeah read about this, rather surprising they got on all those news sites

Reminds me of the newspapers that thought Borat was a real person, and would write articles surprised that a little known central asian reporter was allowed to present at the grammys or whatever...

Actually this isn't like that at all. :/

last edited by Idol at 07:49:43 27/May/08

its undermining the integrity of the internets!

news.com.au is f***ING SHOCKING for just picking up random internet stories and publishing them as fact. It does it all the time seemingly without any of the usual fact checking that one would associate with news sites so its completely unsurprising that something like this would happen.

Its all a shameless scam for more content - and as everyone knows, the media loves the more shocking stories. The person that published that on news.com.au should be fired, and the person who made the policy decision to allow stories that aren't fact-checked to go online should be fired as well.

lols

I really don't believe how po faced and sanctimonious you are all being over what is basically a laugh.

I didn't dupe the media, the idiots duped themselves, they are responsible for what they print not me.

— Sphinn website, The greatest example of linkbait...ever?!, 15th May, 2008

and for you troggles

While this "media-baiting" trend prompts us to take greater care with the hundreds of stories sourced from our partners, it is not possible for any media outlet to contact the sources in every such story.

— Email from David Higgins (Editor, News.com.au) to Media Watch

ahahahahaha ha hah aha hahwa he hajehjkaehwjfdklaj ;lkfjel;kajrkl;ejakl;rjas'd

What that guy is saying, and it's worth noting he's the editor of the news source that (inexplicably) most Australians go to for their news online, is that they're going to just keep publishing anything they want that they think people will click on, regardless of whether or not it is true.

Where was that quote published spook?

it was all in the mediawatch story

im sure if you looked through the mediawatch website you'd find plenty of gold on news.com.au and australian media in general

www.smh.com.au

better url, better content, and good lay out.

why go to news.com.au at all.

this isn't a surprise at all, the mainstream media doesn't even police its serious news properly, let alone its fluffy fillers.

staged photos
altered photos
poorly shopped photos
photos re-used for different incidents
photo descriptions clearly wrong or deliberately misleading

and all this just in one month or so during one small conflict

http://acjournal.org/holdings/vol9/summer/articles/fauxtography.html

how the media can get away with this I do not understand.

the media gets away with plenty natslovr

Google engineer Matt Cutts revealed that Google will soon be punishing link bait attempts such as this.

news.google.com.au

if its not on there its not news

I thought this thread was about the FBI rickrolling people then raiding them before i clicked on it

news ltd is like a new weekly/that's life gossip mag. i only trust the ABC and CNN.

^and reuters

theaustralian.news.com.au <3

www.abc.net.au/news

the australian is good for domestic politics stuff especially and some good op-ed but other than that it's just compiling the same trash as the rest of news.com.au.

oh, i should have mentioned that the australian also printed the fake story

as did a variety of other online news services all around the world

Xbox and hookers on dad's credit card | The Australian
The $1000-a-night prostitutes were released without charge but Ralph was given
a three year community order upon his conviction on May 9, money.co.uk ...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23698007-12377,00.html | similar pages

http://abc.net.au/mediawatch/img/2008/ep15/credit4.jpg


last edited by Spook at 12:41:14 27/May/08

oh, i should have mentioned that the australian also printed the fake story

well dur, the australian is a news.com.au paper.

news limited you mean?

the australian is good for domestic politics stuff especially and some good op-ed but other than that it's just compiling the same trash as the rest of news.com.au.

the paper or online? though i do agree they have a lot of the same trash, but it doesn't get front page billing unlike the courier mail, etc. and worldwide stories don't mention how many queenslanders were involved, killed or whatever.

spook, yes. news.com.au = news ltd

hence the corolation between news.com.au sucking and news ltd papers (daily telegraph in sydney, heraldsun in melbourne, couriermail in brisbane and the Australian) all sucking too.

You may have seen the "Is that the truth or did you read it in the < insert relevant news ltd paper here >?" bumper stickers going around.

news' strategy has always been that of a tabloid. sensational headlines to sell their local rag. news.com.au is just the online culmination of that.

i don't think you can say news.com.au is the same as news limited. its not exactly representative of all its papers.

courier mail, news.com.au, etc have a big left wing bias and s***e editing. the australian (paper) is obviously a lot more conservative (biased maybe) and i don't think it has anywhere near the amount of tabloidness.

each paper has its own editor of course which would dictate its bias, however news.com.au would compile all news from its publications.

I went to school with a couple of the writers on news.com.au not the brightest people

^ Tell them to use a spell check cause someone can't spell for s*** on that site some days.

I don't know them now.

http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/

news.com=fox=rupert=lolz

news is just his means of making money. it's not like you would expect him to have any integrity.

leave that to the govt outlets and e-zines.

rock and a hard place, really. Believe government-run media, or corporate media?!!#@#!

Does the ABC have some sort of charter that defines limitations on government interference?

Well there ain't no laws on it. Publications (like anyone in general) have to earn credibility.

For example, we all know by now, Steve Farrelly's fearless gaming journalistic integrity cannot be purchased by anyone.

ABC tend to be pretty leftist sometimes.