6 ms·

Gotta love tech company culture. :) On an unrelated note, why request a comment from a company at all if you're only going to wait 24 minutes for a response?

by tsally 17y ago

colonelxc 17y ago
Well, I imagine that if you are a tech news site that wants to be known for breaking stories first, you can't wait very long.
- tsally 17y ago
  In one sense, this is why old print media is far superior to the mainstream online media today. You had to wait at least until the press started rolling the next morning before finalizing anything. A turn around time of days instead of minutes results in higher quality and accuracy in my opinion.
  - rythie 17y ago
    I take it you haven't seen the U.K. tabloid press then?
    - dagw 17y ago
      The existence of bad newspapers to do not make all newspapers bad. When all is said and done I still hold that there is not a blog or web site around that can measure up to the best print media when it comes quality journalism and writing.
jkincaid 17y ago
I know this sounds ridiculous, but waiting 24 minutes is a pretty long time in the blogging world for something like this. Had it been something controversial or potentially damaging I would have waited longer and tried calling more people. But this was just a basic feature that was apparently live for everyone (at least, everyone in the TC office). I was really only contacting them to see if they had an explanation as to why they'd want to implement this.
- tsally 17y ago
  Yeah, I can understand that. I wasn't trying to challenge your journalist integrity. As you noted, it wasn't a controversial piece. I was simply saying that trying for a comment in such a small time frame by email is pointless since a response in that time is very unlikely. I was thinking either a phone call or publishing right away as alternatives.
  - jkincaid 17y ago
    Actually Facebook tends to be quite responsive. They have a general press Email address that goes to something like ten PR people, so it isn't unusual to get a response within ten minutes (or at least a note saying that someone is looking into the issue).
    - tsally 17y ago
      Ah, then I understand where you were coming from. Definitely did not know that when I made my original comment. :)
      - dc2k08 17y ago
        The TC post does hint at a serious motive for the prank though. ...And something else about teaching us to contact them before posting.
        arithmetic 17y ago
        I love the fact that the feature (of faxing photos) actually works. Telling sign of true geeks.
        rhodin 17y ago
        Yeah quite cool, hope they'll roll out this feature for all of us!
hristov 17y ago
Oh its a basic journalistic trick. Each journalist wants to give the impression that they see both sides of each story. But if they have a hot story they really do not want to wait to hear the other side. So they request a comment, wait an unreasonably short time, and then print the story saying "we requested a comment from the other side but they did not provide a comment by the deadline for this story".
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Exactly. Whenever you read 'did not return message seeking comment' or 'could not be reached for comment' you really should read 'we try to make it seem like we tried but they didn't care in order to make ourselves more important'. And it puts the pressure on the parties of who they 'request comment' to replay, knowing that if they don't that that dreaded sentence will be in the article, effectively a small component in the trial by media arena. There are other examples of such code phrases but this one is particularly annoying. As though everybody in the world should be at the beck and call of the media, and doing nothing is already a strike against you. Sure, if a politician stonewalls on a subject call them out for it. But don't use that phrase every second article in order to make it seem that the media are something you ignore at your peril. Plenty of people are loathe to talk to reporters simply out of - justified - fear of being misquoted.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    s/replay/reply/ too late to edit. sorry.
- marcusbooster 17y ago
  It used to be that there was a set deadline to respond because of a broadcast time or a printing run. A responsible journalist would call for a comment and if they weren't available they'd let them know when the story had to be done. So here we are when the "journalists" are controlling the printing runs and in this case they thought 24 minutes was a fair time for a response. I think this speaks more about the level of journalism practiced at TechCrunch than anything else, and this Facebook prank actually goes a long way to show that. What kinda baffles me is that all those old deadlines were set by management, the reporters always wanted more time to craft the story and get it right. There were epic battles between reporters and editors over time versus distribution. Now that there's instant publishing the reporters have the same itchy trigger fingers. Just like the before everyone's afraid of being "scooped".
philfreo 17y ago
To be fair... I'm sure they would have updated the post as soon as an official FB comment came in. That's one thing good about online media, it can get better over time.

Gotta love tech company culture. :) On an unrelated note, why request a comment from a company at all if you're only going to wait 24 minutes for a response?

by tsally 17y ago

Gotta love tech company culture. :) On an unrelated note, why request a comment from a company at all if you're only going to wait 24 minutes for a response?

colonelxc 17y ago

Well, I imagine that if you are a tech news site that wants to be known for breaking stories first, you can't wait very long.

tsally 17y ago
In one sense, this is why old print media is far superior to the mainstream online media today. You had to wait at least until the press started rolling the next morning before finalizing anything. A turn around time of days instead of minutes results in higher quality and accuracy in my opinion.
- rythie 17y ago
  I take it you haven't seen the U.K. tabloid press then?
  - dagw 17y ago
    The existence of bad newspapers to do not make all newspapers bad. When all is said and done I still hold that there is not a blog or web site around that can measure up to the best print media when it comes quality journalism and writing.

jkincaid 17y ago

I know this sounds ridiculous, but waiting 24 minutes is a pretty long time in the blogging world for something like this. Had it been something controversial or potentially damaging I would have waited longer and tried calling more people. But this was just a basic feature that was apparently live for everyone (at least, everyone in the TC office). I was really only contacting them to see if they had an explanation as to why they'd want to implement this.

tsally 17y ago
Yeah, I can understand that. I wasn't trying to challenge your journalist integrity. As you noted, it wasn't a controversial piece. I was simply saying that trying for a comment in such a small time frame by email is pointless since a response in that time is very unlikely. I was thinking either a phone call or publishing right away as alternatives.
- jkincaid 17y ago
  Actually Facebook tends to be quite responsive. They have a general press Email address that goes to something like ten PR people, so it isn't unusual to get a response within ten minutes (or at least a note saying that someone is looking into the issue).
  - tsally 17y ago
    Ah, then I understand where you were coming from. Definitely did not know that when I made my original comment. :)
    - dc2k08 17y ago
      The TC post does hint at a serious motive for the prank though. ...And something else about teaching us to contact them before posting.
      - arithmetic 17y ago
        I love the fact that the feature (of faxing photos) actually works. Telling sign of true geeks.
        rhodin 17y ago
        Yeah quite cool, hope they'll roll out this feature for all of us!

hristov 17y ago

Oh its a basic journalistic trick. Each journalist wants to give the impression that they see both sides of each story. But if they have a hot story they really do not want to wait to hear the other side. So they request a comment, wait an unreasonably short time, and then print the story saying "we requested a comment from the other side but they did not provide a comment by the deadline for this story".

jacquesm 17y ago
Exactly. Whenever you read 'did not return message seeking comment' or 'could not be reached for comment' you really should read 'we try to make it seem like we tried but they didn't care in order to make ourselves more important'. And it puts the pressure on the parties of who they 'request comment' to replay, knowing that if they don't that that dreaded sentence will be in the article, effectively a small component in the trial by media arena. There are other examples of such code phrases but this one is particularly annoying. As though everybody in the world should be at the beck and call of the media, and doing nothing is already a strike against you. Sure, if a politician stonewalls on a subject call them out for it. But don't use that phrase every second article in order to make it seem that the media are something you ignore at your peril. Plenty of people are loathe to talk to reporters simply out of - justified - fear of being misquoted.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  s/replay/reply/ too late to edit. sorry.
marcusbooster 17y ago
It used to be that there was a set deadline to respond because of a broadcast time or a printing run. A responsible journalist would call for a comment and if they weren't available they'd let them know when the story had to be done. So here we are when the "journalists" are controlling the printing runs and in this case they thought 24 minutes was a fair time for a response. I think this speaks more about the level of journalism practiced at TechCrunch than anything else, and this Facebook prank actually goes a long way to show that. What kinda baffles me is that all those old deadlines were set by management, the reporters always wanted more time to craft the story and get it right. There were epic battles between reporters and editors over time versus distribution. Now that there's instant publishing the reporters have the same itchy trigger fingers. Just like the before everyone's afraid of being "scooped".

philfreo 17y ago

To be fair... I'm sure they would have updated the post as soon as an official FB comment came in. That's one thing good about online media, it can get better over time.