BY UNDERESTIMATING THE SPEED of tech rumours that go a little viral and overestimating the diligence of Canadian journalism, I lost a bet last week.
Last Thursday, I came across an unsubstantiated rumour on the web that said Telus would have the Apple iPhone in October of this year. I bet a friend it would take a couple of days at least before that rumour found its way into the mainstream media (MSM) as a “sources say” piece. I was wrong. It took less than a day.
Thanks to Google Alerts, I was linked to gadget news/blog site Electronista.com, which had re-reported a rumour it found on telecom web board HowardForums.com. A poster there said he heard Telus would have the Apple iPhone by October this year.
No real name. No hard source to tie this rumour to. Just a guy or girl with a web handle saying he heard something from a Telus executive who also wasn’t named. I made some calls and e-mails to people I know in the industry. Got bupkus, of course.
Less than 24 hours later and, poof, it’s a “sources say” piece in the Toronto Star. Check it out. It actually says “sources say” right at the beginning of the second paragraph. The story also says another source said the price “is going to hurt.” That was actually lifted from a follow-up post on HowardForums.com in response to the original rumour.
It’s a familiar newspaper formula. You come across some sort of nugget or bit or half-a-bit of info, then find an analyst or “industry observer” willing to have their name printed (in this case Dvai Ghose of Genuity Capital Markets) and talk around the issue and you have a story.
Trouble is. It isn’t real. And all Ghose basically said was that Bell and Telus would want the iPhone. Of course they would. But does Rogers have an iPhone exclusive in Canada or did the big red machine assume they’d have a natural one being the only GSMer here? No answer to that question in The Star piece. I’ve heard that Rogers has a 24 month iPhone exclusive – taking them to June 2010. And I’ve heard not. But no one is going to tell me for sure as that’s competitive info. And, I’ve asked, too. Repeatedly.
There are parts of all this that are true – and already known, for that matter. For example: 1. Bell and Telus ARE building a 3G GSM network (HSPA) together. 2. The Apple iPhone doesn’t work on CDMA nets – which is what Bell and Telus run right now. 3. When that new wireless network is ready, both incumbents really, really want to be able to sell the white hot iPhone, too.
That stuff is well known.
There are parts of the story that may also be true, such as Bell and Telus having that new net ready by fall. If I were a betting man, and you already know I am, I’d bet lunch that the companies will have their new net ready – at least in Toronto, Calgary, Montreal and Vancouver – in time for this Christmas season, well before the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver/Whistler, along with a good selection of new HSPA smartphones.
Of course, no one is willing to go on the record will say that for certain but with new wireless entrants coming on soon, it just makes business sense to hurry up. However, only the folks inside Bell and Telus know that.
Anyway, I contacted the poster on HowardForums (RileyFreeman) which was linked from Electronista.com to see what else he or she knew and it turns out not only was he/she not the original source, but that he/she has since found out that Telus only hopes to have the iPhone, it probably won’t be until next June, and that both Bell and Telus are pushing really hard to get the new network ready for fall, but no promises. He’s asked the original poster to amend the Telus iPhone rumour, to no avail as yet.
Now, I don’t know who RileyFreeman is (he’s this, but I don’t think it’s the same guy…), but I wanted to find out if his info was accurate and to see if I could verify it independently (they tell me this is what they teach in reporters school but I never went, so…). It could be true, but I can’t find anyone else to verify.
And here’s the kicker: Not one other reporter had contacted RileyFreeman before I did Monday afternoon, despite how incredibly easy it was to e-chat with him/her. All I did was log into HowardForums, create an account, send a message and he or she responded in less than five minutes.
Not one other reporter attempted that, he/she said. Seriously.
The Canada.com story on it says “rumours are floating around”. I guess that’s true-ish. There’s one rumour – and if you repeat enough times, I suppose it can become plural.
Thanks to the utter lack of due diligence by the mainstream press, other places are now reporting the October launch of the iPhone as “fact” without even linking to the flimsy Star piece, or to the original rumour. This one says it’s definitely happening and that’s according to “our sources”. Sheesh.
At least the reporter at the Montreal Gazette traced the information back to “an online forum for mobile enthusiasts” while referencing the Toronto Star piece in its story.
Only Electronista.com cited HowardForums by name and they were also the only ones to couch the Telus-iPhone “news” with some appropriately doubting language by saying: “the rumor is so far uncorroborated and should be treated with skepticism without further evidence.”
Why didn’t any of the newspapers, our paragons of journalism, say the same thing? And why, for that matter, don’t the newspapers cite the source by name or try a little harder to see if there was more to it or not? I didn’t have to move from my desk and it literally took about 15 minutes to e-chat with the HowardForums poster, put Google to use, and compile the information you’re reading here.
I like newspapers. I still get two treeware editions delivered to my home. But actions like this make me angry. It’s happened to Cartt.ca many times, for that matter. Often in MSM stories about TV or telecom, we’re the “according to an industry follower”, or, “a web site that tracks the industry.”
Journalists are supposed to dig deeper. They are supposed to say who or what their sources are – unless there are mitigating circumstances, like when mentioning a name would get someone fired or otherwise harmed. I’ve used the “sources” tag myself for certain stories when I know the information sent my way; a) is definitely real; and b) could get someone fired if their bosses knew who sent it.
Newspapers – especially the Star – are constantly demanding accountability and transparency from government and big business. It’s about time – and it’s in the news organizations’ best interests – to offer the same transparency to readers so that we can tell real news from web gossip.
