What’s a blogger supposed to do when a published post contains an error or gross misstatement? When a mistake is made and facts are overlooked or opinions run wild, it’s time for an update.
Early yesterday, Perez Hilton responded to rumors about Michael Jackson’s hospitalization with the following post to his blog:
Thanks to Jim D for the screen capture. Perez confirmed the authenticity of the image in his @reply to Pete Wentz:
Bloggers are known for their ability to rapidly churn out content and Perez is no different. In the dog-eat-dog world of celebrity and entertainment blogging, timing is everything and current content trumps factual and witty prose. Perez posted about Michael Jackson as soon as he heard rumors of the star’s hospitalization. In typical cutting fashion, he then made remarks that seemed suitable at the time.
When it turned out that Jackson wasn’t faking sickness and had actually died, the situation seemed very different. Now the post mocking Jackson for previous publicity stunts seemed in very poor taste.
What did Perez do? He deleted the post and published new content meekly remarking on Jackson’s hospitalization and death. I think deleting the post was a mistake.
By removing his original post, Perez missed out on a golden opportunity to use the power of the update to send a strong message to his readers. With an update he could have explained the hasty nature of his first post and reminded readers that his remarks weren’t out of hand in light of the available information. An update lets readers know that the author doesn’t always get everything right the first time. An update lets readers know that sometimes circumstances change and content needs to be altered to reflect those changes.
As Perez Hilton is discovering, once disclosed, content rarely goes away. It’s best to leave posts up once published and update as new information comes along. Readers appreciate it and appreciative readers make the blogging world turn. Treasure them.
What do you think? Would you prefer a blogger delete a post or simply update it with new information and explanations as needed?
Well, Perez has to choose between being blogger and news/gossip source. Blogger is human, personal, makes and corrects mistakes. Although the wish to delete bad blog post is human, it makes one look less personal. One should provide a reason for the deletion at least.
What worries me more is the fact that people like this a loosing their integrity and put a topic like this in first place. This looks very sick after the previous act in twitter about being beaten up. You can play with people emotions, however you need to know the limits. It is not not nice when people recover from your spell and start thinking “Hey, I just laughed about sudden death of person” Or “hey, i just worried about a person who had lied to me about being hurt”. That removes all the trust one had for the blogger.
Well, Perez has to choose between being blogger and news/gossip source. Blogger is human, personal, makes and corrects mistakes. Although the wish to delete bad blog post is human, it makes one look less personal. One should provide a reason for the deletion at least.
What worries me more is the fact that people like this a loosing their integrity and put a topic like this in first place. This looks very sick after the previous act in twitter about being beaten up. You can play with people emotions, however you need to know the limits. It is not not nice when people recover from your spell and start thinking “Hey, I just laughed about sudden death of person” Or “hey, i just worried about a person who had lied to me about being hurt”. That removes all the trust one had for the blogger.
Well, Perez has to choose between being blogger and news/gossip source. Blogger is human, personal, makes and corrects mistakes. Although the wish to delete bad blog post is human, it makes one look less personal. One should provide a reason for the deletion at least.
What worries me more is the fact that people like this a loosing their integrity and put a topic like this in first place. This looks very sick after the previous act in twitter about being beaten up. You can play with people emotions, however you need to know the limits. It is not not nice when people recover from your spell and start thinking “Hey, I just laughed about sudden death of person” Or “hey, i just worried about a person who had lied to me about being hurt”. That removes all the trust one had for the blogger.
I don't think he necessarily has to choose. Most of our reliable news sources rely on updating to stay current. Deleting isn't an option for them. It also makes a blogger look more human and personal to correct their mistakes. Some middle ground perhaps!
You bring up a great point about the importance of observing boundaries in making use of the “free publicity” that marketers love to go on about. Push too much and the trust that built you up will break apart and there's nothing left to stand on. I'm not sure what Perez will decide to do.
I don't think he necessarily has to choose. Most of our reliable news sources rely on updating to stay current. Deleting isn't an option for them. It also makes a blogger look more human and personal to correct their mistakes. Some middle ground perhaps!
You bring up a great point about the importance of observing boundaries in making use of the “free publicity” that marketers love to go on about. Push too much and the trust that built you up will break apart and there's nothing left to stand on. I'm not sure what Perez will decide to do.
I don't think he necessarily has to choose. Most of our reliable news sources rely on updating to stay current. Deleting isn't an option for them. It also makes a blogger look more human and personal to correct their mistakes. Some middle ground perhaps!
You bring up a great point about the importance of observing boundaries in making use of the “free publicity” that marketers love to go on about. Push too much and the trust that built you up will break apart and there's nothing left to stand on. I'm not sure what Perez will decide to do.
I always shake my head that people think that if they delete it, no one saw it, read it, took a screenshot of it, or talked about it. Sometimes I think he does things like this just to get people talking about it and bring him more traffic. I'll still never read him…
I always shake my head that people think that if they delete it, no one saw it, read it, took a screenshot of it, or talked about it. Sometimes I think he does things like this just to get people talking about it and bring him more traffic. I'll still never read him…
I always shake my head that people think that if they delete it, no one saw it, read it, took a screenshot of it, or talked about it. Sometimes I think he does things like this just to get people talking about it and bring him more traffic. I'll still never read him…
Ah – you gotta feel for a blogger in this situation. You put a bit of yourself out there everytime a post goes up and this must have been so difficult. I tend to work with the golden rule that I don't delete anything – although I will correct errors. We don't expect the unexpected, and although Michael Jackson wasn't in great health he was very young. Have to say, I can't blame the guy either way, and shock provides a knee jerk reaction that might have been better if you had longer to think about it. Can't deny you have a point though, Seth. Admitting mistakes and making good is usually the best route.
Ah – you gotta feel for a blogger in this situation. You put a bit of yourself out there everytime a post goes up and this must have been so difficult. I tend to work with the golden rule that I don't delete anything – although I will correct errors. We don't expect the unexpected, and although Michael Jackson wasn't in great health he was very young. Have to say, I can't blame the guy either way, and shock provides a knee jerk reaction that might have been better if you had longer to think about it. Can't deny you have a point though, Seth. Admitting mistakes and making good is usually the best route.
Ah – you gotta feel for a blogger in this situation. You put a bit of yourself out there everytime a post goes up and this must have been so difficult. I tend to work with the golden rule that I don't delete anything – although I will correct errors. We don't expect the unexpected, and although Michael Jackson wasn't in great health he was very young. Have to say, I can't blame the guy either way, and shock provides a knee jerk reaction that might have been better if you had longer to think about it. Can't deny you have a point though, Seth. Admitting mistakes and making good is usually the best route.
Definitely a great post & question. My initial reaction was to say delete it – but as you've proven, it doesn't equal it is gone. I think it is important for bloggers to choose one side or the other and then remain consistent so that readers have a consistent experience. Thanks for the post!
@nlawhead
Definitely a great post & question. My initial reaction was to say delete it – but as you've proven, it doesn't equal it is gone. I think it is important for bloggers to choose one side or the other and then remain consistent so that readers have a consistent experience. Thanks for the post!
@nlawhead
Definitely a great post & question. My initial reaction was to say delete it – but as you've proven, it doesn't equal it is gone. I think it is important for bloggers to choose one side or the other and then remain consistent so that readers have a consistent experience. Thanks for the post!
@nlawhead
I remember a month or so ago when there was an article by a journalist who did a sociological study by putting a fake quote to French film composer Maurice Jarre on Wikipedia just to see how many people would use it. Unfortunately, Jarre died soon thereafter and the quote was everywhere.
When I put my post about Jarre's death on my blog, I found the quote at some very reputable international newspapers and also used it. You figure if it's coming from these types of sources, the quote must be real. Nope. When someone pointed out the error, I removed the quote from the original post and reworded it. The post now lacked the punch since the quote opened and closed the obituary (it was a great quote!), but at least it was accurate.
Because I was so angry, more at myself than anyone, I toyed with leaving it up there and either adding a note to that post or creating a new one to deal with the situation. I wish I had done either of those instead of deleting the material.
The whole situation taught me a valuable lesson in accuracy, especially online, even from the major sources. And I think I'd probably leave the material up and show that human side of error if the situation ever came up again (which hopefully it won't).
I remember a month or so ago when there was an article by a journalist who did a sociological study by putting a fake quote to French film composer Maurice Jarre on Wikipedia just to see how many people would use it. Unfortunately, Jarre died soon thereafter and the quote was everywhere.
When I put my post about Jarre's death on my blog, I found the quote at some very reputable international newspapers and also used it. You figure if it's coming from these types of sources, the quote must be real. Nope. When someone pointed out the error, I removed the quote from the original post and reworded it. The post now lacked the punch since the quote opened and closed the obituary (it was a great quote!), but at least it was accurate.
Because I was so angry, more at myself than anyone, I toyed with leaving it up there and either adding a note to that post or creating a new one to deal with the situation. I wish I had done either of those instead of deleting the material.
The whole situation taught me a valuable lesson in accuracy, especially online, even from the major sources. And I think I'd probably leave the material up and show that human side of error if the situation ever came up again (which hopefully it won't).
I remember a month or so ago when there was an article by a journalist who did a sociological study by putting a fake quote to French film composer Maurice Jarre on Wikipedia just to see how many people would use it. Unfortunately, Jarre died soon thereafter and the quote was everywhere.
When I put my post about Jarre's death on my blog, I found the quote at some very reputable international newspapers and also used it. You figure if it's coming from these types of sources, the quote must be real. Nope. When someone pointed out the error, I removed the quote from the original post and reworded it. The post now lacked the punch since the quote opened and closed the obituary (it was a great quote!), but at least it was accurate.
Because I was so angry, more at myself than anyone, I toyed with leaving it up there and either adding a note to that post or creating a new one to deal with the situation. I wish I had done either of those instead of deleting the material.
The whole situation taught me a valuable lesson in accuracy, especially online, even from the major sources. And I think I'd probably leave the material up and show that human side of error if the situation ever came up again (which hopefully it won't).
There is a vast difference between deleting a factual news story to try to hide or change developing details, and deleting editorial comment.
The only way I've read Hilton's blog is by accident. I am not a fan. (Not really a fan of MJ, either, for that matter.) However, I think Hilton has the right to change or delete his posts, as they are merely expressions of his opinion.
Maybe he actually felt bad for 'speaking ill of the dead' when he found out the truth and felt very guilty.
To his credit, he did acknowledge that the screen shot was of his original post. At least he wasn't dumb enough to accuse someone of Photoshopping his blog.
Maybe, if he chooses to, he'll give his reasons as to why he removed the post, and maybe share what he learned from it. Maybe he'll say something like, “The lightheartedness of my post intending to make readers smile no longer delivered that message, and out of respect for MJ and his fans, I removed the post.” Or, “I realized it was kinda mean of me and inappropriate at a time like this. I learned today that I am not a doctor and I have no right to speculate on anyone's health. Please forgive me.”
On one hand, individuals like notoriety (I believe one reason social media works is because of approbation lust). On the other hand, bloggers in particular don't have the same protection as a corporate news company. They don't have their own PR department to make gaffes disappear. They aren't selling a million different brands and products, some best sellers and others collecting dust on the shelf – just themselves. At the end of the day, they are still human.
Humans do things like calling friends and asking them to forget the hurtful things they said in ignorance. Because the blog is an extension of himself, I don't see this as any different than the scenario above. At the end of the day, in a world of corporations pretending to be trust-worthy mommy bloggers (because moms are nurturing and would never lie), Hilton shines true as a human.
That's refreshing.
There is a vast difference between deleting a factual news story to try to hide or change developing details, and deleting editorial comment.
The only way I've read Hilton's blog is by accident. I am not a fan. (Not really a fan of MJ, either, for that matter.) However, I think Hilton has the right to change or delete his posts, as they are merely expressions of his opinion.
Maybe he actually felt bad for 'speaking ill of the dead' when he found out the truth and felt very guilty.
To his credit, he did acknowledge that the screen shot was of his original post. At least he wasn't dumb enough to accuse someone of Photoshopping his blog.
Maybe, if he chooses to, he'll give his reasons as to why he removed the post, and maybe share what he learned from it. Maybe he'll say something like, “The lightheartedness of my post intending to make readers smile no longer delivered that message, and out of respect for MJ and his fans, I removed the post.” Or, “I realized it was kinda mean of me and inappropriate at a time like this. I learned today that I am not a doctor and I have no right to speculate on anyone's health. Please forgive me.”
On one hand, individuals like notoriety (I believe one reason social media works is because of approbation lust). On the other hand, bloggers in particular don't have the same protection as a corporate news company. They don't have their own PR department to make gaffes disappear. They aren't selling a million different brands and products, some best sellers and others collecting dust on the shelf – just themselves. At the end of the day, they are still human.
Humans do things like calling friends and asking them to forget the hurtful things they said in ignorance. Because the blog is an extension of himself, I don't see this as any different than the scenario above. At the end of the day, in a world of corporations pretending to be trust-worthy mommy bloggers (because moms are nurturing and would never lie), Hilton shines true as a human.
That's refreshing.
There is a vast difference between deleting a factual news story to try to hide or change developing details, and deleting editorial comment.
The only way I've read Hilton's blog is by accident. I am not a fan. (Not really a fan of MJ, either, for that matter.) However, I think Hilton has the right to change or delete his posts, as they are merely expressions of his opinion.
Maybe he actually felt bad for 'speaking ill of the dead' when he found out the truth and felt very guilty.
To his credit, he did acknowledge that the screen shot was of his original post. At least he wasn't dumb enough to accuse someone of Photoshopping his blog.
Maybe, if he chooses to, he'll give his reasons as to why he removed the post, and maybe share what he learned from it. Maybe he'll say something like, “The lightheartedness of my post intending to make readers smile no longer delivered that message, and out of respect for MJ and his fans, I removed the post.” Or, “I realized it was kinda mean of me and inappropriate at a time like this. I learned today that I am not a doctor and I have no right to speculate on anyone's health. Please forgive me.”
On one hand, individuals like notoriety (I believe one reason social media works is because of approbation lust). On the other hand, bloggers in particular don't have the same protection as a corporate news company. They don't have their own PR department to make gaffes disappear. They aren't selling a million different brands and products, some best sellers and others collecting dust on the shelf – just themselves. At the end of the day, they are still human.
Humans do things like calling friends and asking them to forget the hurtful things they said in ignorance. Because the blog is an extension of himself, I don't see this as any different than the scenario above. At the end of the day, in a world of corporations pretending to be trust-worthy mommy bloggers (because moms are nurturing and would never lie), Hilton shines true as a human.
That's refreshing.
Haha. Amy, you just DID read him! =) I think he was trying to be edgy and fell off a cliff with this one. I just think there was more benefit in leaving it posted and explaining the logic behind it.
Readers are often more tolerant of truth than we might expect.
Thanks Amy!
Haha. Amy, you just DID read him! =) I think he was trying to be edgy and fell off a cliff with this one. I just think there was more benefit in leaving it posted and explaining the logic behind it.
Readers are often more tolerant of truth than we might expect.
Thanks Amy!
Haha. Amy, you just DID read him! =) I think he was trying to be edgy and fell off a cliff with this one. I just think there was more benefit in leaving it posted and explaining the logic behind it.
Readers are often more tolerant of truth than we might expect.
Thanks Amy!
Admitting mistakes and making them right is the best way to build trust. You can only do so much with a blog that people don't trust.
You're right about the knee-jerk reaction. Given a different timeline, perhaps the post would have stayed up? No idea.
The method of offering noted updates has good results though. Hopefully Perez will go that route next time.
Admitting mistakes and making them right is the best way to build trust. You can only do so much with a blog that people don't trust.
You're right about the knee-jerk reaction. Given a different timeline, perhaps the post would have stayed up? No idea.
The method of offering noted updates has good results though. Hopefully Perez will go that route next time.
Admitting mistakes and making them right is the best way to build trust. You can only do so much with a blog that people don't trust.
You're right about the knee-jerk reaction. Given a different timeline, perhaps the post would have stayed up? No idea.
The method of offering noted updates has good results though. Hopefully Perez will go that route next time.
“one side or the other” -meaning consistent deletion or updating? I don't think deleting posts counts as a “side” so much as a disruption of a conversation. The stuff is never really gone anyhow.
Perhaps it's best to calculate punches and roll with the results? I hope so.
“one side or the other” -meaning consistent deletion or updating? I don't think deleting posts counts as a “side” so much as a disruption of a conversation. The stuff is never really gone anyhow.
Perhaps it's best to calculate punches and roll with the results? I hope so.
“one side or the other” -meaning consistent deletion or updating? I don't think deleting posts counts as a “side” so much as a disruption of a conversation. The stuff is never really gone anyhow.
Perhaps it's best to calculate punches and roll with the results? I hope so.
I can see how a BLOGGER would do that. Yank the post in a fit of FRICKpanic however PEREZ? He's created his brand on being over the top. Ive read him (I know. I know) since he was page sixsixsix (actually thats not all true–I STOPPED reading him after he switched from that) and liked his chutzpah and not caring.
yes the post would have been mean and inappropriate given the fact MJ passed but no MORE so than lots of what he posts and his inexplicably offhand gay slur hurled at will.i.am (seriously. you could punch me in the face without warning and Im not going to call you a dirty Jew. SERIOUSLY.).
ok.
no mo' rambles.
I guess I see how Minerva Mommy Blogger might have yanked the post and hoped no one noticed but Perez?
he's just changed.
afraid.
wimpy
and *I* think 90% of it is he feels the tide turning on HIM after the incident last week.
I can see how a BLOGGER would do that. Yank the post in a fit of FRICKpanic however PEREZ? He's created his brand on being over the top. Ive read him (I know. I know) since he was page sixsixsix (actually thats not all true–I STOPPED reading him after he switched from that) and liked his chutzpah and not caring.
yes the post would have been mean and inappropriate given the fact MJ passed but no MORE so than lots of what he posts and his inexplicably offhand gay slur hurled at will.i.am (seriously. you could punch me in the face without warning and Im not going to call you a dirty Jew. SERIOUSLY.).
ok.
no mo' rambles.
I guess I see how Minerva Mommy Blogger might have yanked the post and hoped no one noticed but Perez?
he's just changed.
afraid.
wimpy
and *I* think 90% of it is he feels the tide turning on HIM after the incident last week.
I can see how a BLOGGER would do that. Yank the post in a fit of FRICKpanic however PEREZ? He's created his brand on being over the top. Ive read him (I know. I know) since he was page sixsixsix (actually thats not all true–I STOPPED reading him after he switched from that) and liked his chutzpah and not caring.
yes the post would have been mean and inappropriate given the fact MJ passed but no MORE so than lots of what he posts and his inexplicably offhand gay slur hurled at will.i.am (seriously. you could punch me in the face without warning and Im not going to call you a dirty Jew. SERIOUSLY.).
ok.
no mo' rambles.
I guess I see how Minerva Mommy Blogger might have yanked the post and hoped no one noticed but Perez?
he's just changed.
afraid.
wimpy
and *I* think 90% of it is he feels the tide turning on HIM after the incident last week.
Given that MJ died, I find it more respectful to remove the post.
Given that MJ died, I find it more respectful to remove the post.
Given that MJ died, I find it more respectful to remove the post.
Very interesting to see these comments. I'm new to the world of blogging and its great getting a true perspective of what it really is. I would have immediately assumed it was a good thing that he deleted the post, but after reviewing your comments I see the other side of the story.
Very interesting to see these comments. I'm new to the world of blogging and its great getting a true perspective of what it really is. I would have immediately assumed it was a good thing that he deleted the post, but after reviewing your comments I see the other side of the story.
Very interesting to see these comments. I'm new to the world of blogging and its great getting a true perspective of what it really is. I would have immediately assumed it was a good thing that he deleted the post, but after reviewing your comments I see the other side of the story.
Correct, concise communication. Apologies to all and correct with new update.
Correct, concise communication. Apologies to all and correct with new update.
Correct, concise communication. Apologies to all and correct with new update.
I meant consistency in policy more than anything, but i can definitely see how that could get disruptive.
Again, I understand the argument, but he probably saved himself at least some grief w/ his readers. He is a jackass anyway, so that post wouldn't have done him any favors. Deleting for damage-control's sake doesn't make it any better, but perhaps the end justifies the means?
@nlawhead
I meant consistency in policy more than anything, but i can definitely see how that could get disruptive.
Again, I understand the argument, but he probably saved himself at least some grief w/ his readers. He is a jackass anyway, so that post wouldn't have done him any favors. Deleting for damage-control's sake doesn't make it any better, but perhaps the end justifies the means?
@nlawhead
I meant consistency in policy more than anything, but i can definitely see how that could get disruptive.
Again, I understand the argument, but he probably saved himself at least some grief w/ his readers. He is a jackass anyway, so that post wouldn't have done him any favors. Deleting for damage-control's sake doesn't make it any better, but perhaps the end justifies the means?
@nlawhead
Well, considering I've just written about sticking to your beliefs, it'd be hypocritical of me to say anything else than he should have left it up and either defended or explained, depending on your take on it.
The other question is, did Perez Hilton write it or one of his ghostbloggers that he now uses?
Either way, while questioning the perceived illness without offering the view that Jackson may have actually been ill didn't do him any favours, standing up and admitting an error beside the original post would have been a better option (I feel).
Nice topic, Seth.
Well, considering I've just written about sticking to your beliefs, it'd be hypocritical of me to say anything else than he should have left it up and either defended or explained, depending on your take on it.
The other question is, did Perez Hilton write it or one of his ghostbloggers that he now uses?
Either way, while questioning the perceived illness without offering the view that Jackson may have actually been ill didn't do him any favours, standing up and admitting an error beside the original post would have been a better option (I feel).
Nice topic, Seth.
Well, considering I've just written about sticking to your beliefs, it'd be hypocritical of me to say anything else than he should have left it up and either defended or explained, depending on your take on it.
The other question is, did Perez Hilton write it or one of his ghostbloggers that he now uses?
Either way, while questioning the perceived illness without offering the view that Jackson may have actually been ill didn't do him any favours, standing up and admitting an error beside the original post would have been a better option (I feel).
Nice topic, Seth.
Leave it and explain, otherwise you appear dishonest. You are exactly right, once its out there, deal with it.
Leave it and explain, otherwise you appear dishonest. You are exactly right, once its out there, deal with it.
I remember hearing about that story. It's become a bit of a game for some people to seed Wikipedia and see if they can get their content quoted in a “reputable” source.
A follow up post remarking on the storyline you just shared with a few “take away” remarks for your readers might have proven a great opportunity to chat with your readers about the reliability of information on the web.
There's always next time, right?
Thanks Jim!
I remember hearing about that story. It's become a bit of a game for some people to seed Wikipedia and see if they can get their content quoted in a “reputable” source.
A follow up post remarking on the storyline you just shared with a few “take away” remarks for your readers might have proven a great opportunity to chat with your readers about the reliability of information on the web.
There's always next time, right?
Thanks Jim!
I'm not sure it's just Perez writing his blog now so a few other storylines come into play. He's built his brand mainly of exacerbated gaffes and jabs at celebrities…this MJ post was a natural result of that.
Perhaps it's too much to ask a massively popular blogger to exhibit some integrity in published content because of the blog's genre? Maybe. I suppose it is his and he chooses what to do with it. I just saw an opportunity for some real growth in a different direction.
I'm not sure it's just Perez writing his blog now so a few other storylines come into play. He's built his brand mainly of exacerbated gaffes and jabs at celebrities…this MJ post was a natural result of that.
Perhaps it's too much to ask a massively popular blogger to exhibit some integrity in published content because of the blog's genre? Maybe. I suppose it is his and he chooses what to do with it. I just saw an opportunity for some real growth in a different direction.
It can be useful for readers to learn a bit about the process behind the writing and what makes the writer an individual. You can never, ever, actually delete things online. Once it's out…it's out. =)
It can be useful for readers to learn a bit about the process behind the writing and what makes the writer an individual. You can never, ever, actually delete things online. Once it's out…it's out. =)
Because the ghostwriter is publishing under Perez's name, it still falls on him to do the final cleanup. That's the yicky part of trusting content creation to strangers.
Sticking to one's beliefs is always a good choice. Changing those beliefs in light of new information can be difficult but useful. I'm working to be powerful enough to stick to my beliefs and strong enough to know when it's time to change.
Thanks Danny!
Because the ghostwriter is publishing under Perez's name, it still falls on him to do the final cleanup. That's the yicky part of trusting content creation to strangers.
Sticking to one's beliefs is always a good choice. Changing those beliefs in light of new information can be difficult but useful. I'm working to be powerful enough to stick to my beliefs and strong enough to know when it's time to change.
Thanks Danny!