Go ahead. Try to find a source referenced in this GamesRadar story. I dare ya!
Who's saying this stuff? Microsoft? An analyst? The janitor? God? Heck, I'd even take a reference to "anonymous sources" at this point, just to have some idea where the "latest word" referenced in the lead is coming from. How can I evaluate this information without some inkling of who's giving it?
One line in the third paragraph -- "It's been reported" -- hints that their main source is other articles. But the article doesn't even hint at what type of reports these are. Rumored reports? Official reports? From a game magazine? From a web site? From Better Homes and Gardens?
I understand that you don't want to give free advertising to your competitors. I understand that you don't want to reveal that your only source for a story is a story published on another Web site. But an article like this with no hints at the sources is less than useless to a discerning reader. Do us all a favor and just provide a link next time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hehe, don't believe the hype indeed.
ReplyDeleteThe "previously reported" line is now a link to a previous gamesradar story.
ReplyDeleteThe "previously reported" line was a link when I viewed the story too. That story, at least, cites a leaked document for it's information on existence of two different versions of Xbox 360. The new story has new information, but no mention of where that new information came from.
ReplyDeleteThe line I mentioned in my post is not this one, but the one in the third paragraph which is the only hint to _outside_ sources that may have been consulted.
Somebody should have been sacked for that story. I don't know what the supposed difference between real journliasm and GamesRadar journalism is, but usually when you fail to attribute, even so much as a line, it's considered plagiarism.
ReplyDeleteThere's no credibility in that story. None. Using a previous story as the source for the current story doesn't add any value. It's still worth nothing.