This blog is home of the 21st century scholars course at East Knox High School. Those who visit must interact , debate, and discuss events that are important to our lives.
Books I read in October 2024
11 months ago
Telephone, tell a freind, telegraph
Author: Ryan Gallwitz
DANGER OF DIGITAL AGE
'Roberts quits' rumor only a class exercise
Saturday, March 6, 2010 6:28 AM
Los Angeles Times
NEW YORK - NBC anchor Brian Williams' train was pulling into Washington on Thursday afternoon when he read an urgent bulletin on his BlackBerry: Chief Justice John Roberts was contemplating stepping down, according to a report on RadarOnline.
"It struck me as odd," Williams said. "What I know about Radar does not include their Supreme Court reporting."
Still, it caused Williams to rush to NBC's bureau.
A minute later, NBC correspondent Pete Williams e-mailed the anchor that sources at the court had knocked down the story.
But the tale behind the rumor turned out to be almost as intriguing: It apparently originated in a law class at Georgetown Uni versity as part of a lecture about the importance of verifying the credibility of legal informants.
Peter Tague, a professor who specializes in criminal procedure and professional responsibility, apparently had floated similar stories in other classes over the years.
But this time, the news quickly flew beyond the classroom. "Since everyone is so wired these days, the students were IMing and G-chatting and e-mailing friends and family and, in the span of somewhere between 30 minutes and an hour, the rumor spread like wildfire," said David Lat, editor of the legal blog Above the Law.
Midway through the class, Tague told his students that he had made up the story, but it was too late. Radar soon posted its story, which quickly was picked up by the Drudge Report.
"It struck me as odd," Williams said. "What I know about Radar does not include their Supreme Court reporting."
Still, it caused Williams to rush to NBC's bureau.
A minute later, NBC correspondent Pete Williams e-mailed the anchor that sources at the court had knocked down the story.
But the tale behind the rumor turned out to be almost as intriguing: It apparently originated in a law class at Georgetown Uni versity as part of a lecture about the importance of verifying the credibility of legal informants.
Peter Tague, a professor who specializes in criminal procedure and professional responsibility, apparently had floated similar stories in other classes over the years.
But this time, the news quickly flew beyond the classroom. "Since everyone is so wired these days, the students were IMing and G-chatting and e-mailing friends and family and, in the span of somewhere between 30 minutes and an hour, the rumor spread like wildfire," said David Lat, editor of the legal blog Above the Law.
Midway through the class, Tague told his students that he had made up the story, but it was too late. Radar soon posted its story, which quickly was picked up by the Drudge Report.
Hearing how things like this can spread so quickly is very frightening.Don't get me wrong, it is great that we can have technology so widespread that everybody in the world has access to all information but, it is bad when rumors about people can spread like "wildfire". Technology though very powerful, can also be extraordinarily lethal. Imagine the implications that rumor had on Chief Justice John Roberts name.
I think this shows why its important to not spread rumors, especially when dealing with technology.
I think that in today's digital age, people should always be conscious of what they say. A rumor could easily ruin someone's reputation in a matter of minutes. I think that we as people have to realize the changing ways of the world and adapt to them. Social behavior will definitely be a factor of that.
I agree with Cody and Zach on their comments and vies. It is scary that technology can impact some many people so fast. It shows that everyone needs to be careful on what they say.
I agree with what everyone has said. People dont realize that what they say could have a huge effect on so many things, especially technology.
This article is a good example of why everyone should verify a story before passing it along. This happens even without technology, but it takes a little longer.
I read this and laughed a little bit. It goes to show that you need to verfy what your hearing and not just assume it is correct.
Does this remind anyone else of 1984 by George Orwell? It's almost scary. It reflects how we can only make judgment with the facts available. So even if you try to "verify what you hear", you will verify if your only sources are indirect. And fiction becomes the truth.
I think this is a very interesting topic when discussing ancient religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism). We cannot tell what is fact and what has been changed through history. Not only did people not have science to rely on, but how has interpretations of holy books changed over thousands of years? Translations also play in. Since the Old Testament is in Hebrew, unless you know Hebrew you are relying on someone else's translations.