by Mike Masnick

How A Little Editing Inflated Some Web 2.0 Hype

from the that's-all-it-takes dept

Last week, we were among those who were fairly shocked at BusinessWeek's dreadful coverage of Digg. Despite what some folks at Digg and in the comments seemed to think, our piece was nothing against Digg at all -- but it was about BusinessWeek's reporting on the topic. They claimed Digg founder Kevin Rose had "made $60 million" when he's done no such thing. A number of others have noticed the same thing. Rather than admitting to really shoddy reporting, it seems that the BusinessWeek team is trying to defend the article or claim that the reason people are upset is the breezy language used in the article. However, one thing is becoming clear: there were a few last minute changes that made this article seem a lot worse than it may have originally been. First, apparently those "higher up" pushed editors to change the cover and throw in the totally made up $60 million number at the last minute, replacing a slightly less ridiculous cover.

However, I just flipped through the paper copy of the magazine, and noticed that the web-based article is different from the hardcopy one -- and that might explain some of the confusion. The web-based one that upset so many people has this line at the end of the first paragraph: "At 29, Rose was on his way either to a cool $60 million or to total failure." That's the only mention of $60 million. Since the article doesn't say it anywhere else, most of us figured out the math that the reporters assumed Rose's stake was valued at $60 million. This was bothersome for two reasons. First, being valued at something (especially when that value comes from anonymous "people in the know" rather than any actual market transaction) is quite different than having "made" something. Second, since the number was on the cover, you'd think the article would actually explain it. It turns out they did a slightly (just slightly) better job in the paper edition. There, the first paragraph ends with this sentence: "At 29, Rose was on his way to a multimillion-dollar future or abject failure." No more $60 million. No more implication that the $60 million was already in the bank. Next, in the web-based version, there's this sentence: "Nonetheless, people in the know say Digg is easily worth $200 million." In the paper version, it's "Yet all the Valley hoopla gives the company a valuation of roughly $200 million, making Rose's stake worth a cool $60 million." So, it's still a poorly written article from a magazine that is supposedly a "business" publication, but which apparently doesn't seem to understand the difference between made up valuations and actual money in the bank -- but it certainly looks like some last minute edits were made to play up a mythical $60 million without ever explaining where it came from. If the reporters are defending the version from the magazine, they might want to reread the web-based version to see what's been done.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1. identicon
    Adam Jusko, Aug 7th, 2006 @ 11:08am

    It seems like BusinessWeek could have easily avoided the controversy by reworking the headline just slightly. It could still be sensationalistic without being plain wrong.

    Something like "How Could This Kid Be Worth $60 Million?" or "Could This Kid Really Be Worth $60 Million?"

    Gives the impression he's worth $60 million even if he's really not. Not sure if that's quite as impactful as saying he made $60 million in 18 months, but it's not false.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 2006 @ 11:27am

    Well, as a reporter myself, I can say that my income is substantially lower than a million of anything. So, it's pretty easy to throw around $60M that and $200M this without really understanding -- in a personal sense -- what those figures mean.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Lay Person, Aug 7th, 2006 @ 11:31am

    More research...

    I'm sure if anyone has the time to digg deeper, they would surely find an economic connection between Digg and BusinessWeek.

    The article is so pro-digg slanted that it'd be very hard to convince me otherwise.

    Someone has interests, if not the magazine itself then the author or the editor...someone, somewhere is trying to get paid.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Matt, Aug 7th, 2006 @ 11:44am

    oh no!

    I feel like I'm living 2000 all over again!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    DreadedOne509, Aug 7th, 2006 @ 11:57am

    I Value Myself...

    ...at $600 Billion dollars, would anyone like to invest in me? Bill Gates is my biotch.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. icon
    Yet another Anonymous Coward (profile), Aug 7th, 2006 @ 1:07pm


    Business Week still does not understand. They had to say something about Digg since it is so popular. They just got it wrong because they don't understand what is going on or why, since in business V1.0 this can't happen.

    This also demonstrates a disconnect between the web version of the rag and the papyrus version. Obviously the web version was not the final copy, and no one there is interested in keeping it updated since it obviously is not as important as the papyrus version.

    This is a fluff article, something to sell the rag with a cute kid that does well as the cover story.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    Dillenger69, Aug 7th, 2006 @ 4:55pm

    there is no web 2.0

    There is no web 2.0.
    Unless somehow there's a brand new HTTP version out there that some new browser is using.

    Meet the new web, same as the old web.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Duh, Aug 7th, 2006 @ 5:10pm

    Looking At You As An Imbecile...

    Simple Advice:

    Don't trust everything you read. Require multiple sources of information.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    another anonymous coward, Aug 7th, 2006 @ 5:10pm

    BW gives journos a bad name

    If you read past the poorly chosen headline and into the rest of the story, you'll see there are more errors, more examples of sloppy reporting and more pathetic "i LOVE your kool-aid!" phrasing. The controversy is not about writing style, it's about amateur reporting. Looks like someone fell in love with her sources, a habit any good editor will break for any weak reporter. Shame on Business Week.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 2006 @ 10:20pm

    Christ, this (the online BW article, the print article isn't as bad) is what I expect from fanboy blogs, not traditional professional media that ought to be complete with some degree of neutrality and fact-checking, along with explinations.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2006 @ 5:47am

    Credible Journalism

    It just goes to show that professional journalism is no more credible than amateur journalism.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. identicon
    Robert, Aug 18th, 2006 @ 1:20pm

    Kevin Rose on cover of People Magazine, too

    It was a surprise to see Kevin Rose on the cover of Business Week. However, if was even more of a shock to see him on the cover of People Magazine, just a week after Lance Bass was featured...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.