|
August 30, 2007
Repetitively Redebunking the repetitively recycled
Is there some kind of statute of limitations on news stories? Any rule about how old they have to be? Recently, a story has been circulating about a man named "Mark Voegel" in Dortmund, Germany, who was supposedly bitten by a pet Black Widow spider named "Bettina," following which his body was reported to have been substantially devoured by spiders and lizards. Here's the text of the story, which is dated August 31, 2007: From ALLAN HALLNot only is this story making the rounds of the Internet, it's also managed to find its way into the Washington Post. I realize that nothing ever happens in August, but was yesterday an especially slow news day or something? (I wouldn't have known, as I was busy tap-dancing along with Larry Craig's T-room footsie saga.) The problem is that the same story (involving the same cast of characters, and with much of the same wording as "today's" Sun "report") occurs in old discussions as a 2004 Darwin Award story: Darwin Awards:Predictably, there are numerous 2004 posts and reports of the same story in the Darwin Award context. (And here's the exact same story as today's posted in 2004. And blogged in 2004.) Whether the story was ever true, I have no way of knowing, because it's so old that the Dortmund news reports have probably vanished. But some spider geeks seemed to have debunked much of it in 2004, with activist "Gabi Bayer" claiming she'd been misquoted, that there was no verification of any spiders causing the death, and -- get this -- that the Washington Times was irresponsible in reporting the story! Here's "gothmog" commenting on O3-01-2004: Hi All, first post hereHmmm..... OK, I don't know whether the Sun made up this news story in 2004, or why the Washington Times might have run it (whether it was verified or not). Predictably, the Times link no longer works. I guess it would be worse if the Sun did make it up in 2004, because as it stands now, they're recycling news that's over three years old, and pretending it just happened. I think that by any reasonable standard, recycling old news that was made up in the first place is even worse than recycling old news and claiming it just happened. (At least the Washington Times doesn't seem to have fallen for it the second time around. Not yet, anyway.) According to the Wiki entry, the Sun is the largest English newspaper in the world, and while it has a reputation for sensationalism, I don't think making up stories and then repeating them as new three years later constitutes sensationalism. It's more on the level of Weekly World News. Blogger Steven Lloyd actually remembered the story, so he dug into its history and credibility. Apparently it is old, but the Sun keeps running it as new and it keeps getting recirculated, no matter how many times it's disproved: Members of the forum searched all over the internet and could not find any instances or records of a German man, "Mark Voegel" or "Mark Vogel" or "Mark Vögel" ever having been killed. Nor anybody having been killed by a spider or spiders and/or eaten by reptiles.This is almost as bad as Capitol Hill Blue! Longtime readers may remember that I devoted a great deal of time to debunking that rather ridiculous "news site" run by Doug Thompson -- which featured fictitious characters like the disappearing "George Harleigh." I remember being foolish enough to think that because Capitol Hill Blue had been "discredited" that it would just go away. Not so. Capitol Hill Blue and Doug Thompson have a seemingly endless capactity for self reinvention -- which in turn is now forcing bloggers to reinvent the wheel doing what was supposedly done long ago. In "UPDATE 2: He's Baaack - More Lies, Hilarity & Hypocrisy from Doug Thompson & Capitol Hill Blue" and "One Man, Two Phantom Sources, a Few Fictional Friends, and Zero Credibility a very thorough blogger has painstakingly built yet another case against CHB and Thompson. I'm delighted to be cited as a source, but I wish it wasn't necessary for anyone to be doing this all over again -- especially in such painstaking detail. Much as my hat's off to journlisnt.com. and to all the debunkers like him, I'm wondering.... Is there any way to debunk anything so that it stays debunked? posted by Eric on 08.30.07 at 03:25 PM
Comments
I have no way to check the print edition because I don't live in England, but remember that the Sun URL code for the story is 20040920 -- which means it is a 2004 story. Why it has an August 31, 2007 date on it now and why it's being treated as new by other news sources, I don't know. As to the discrepancy between online and print editions, it drives me crazy. The Philadelphia Inquirer has a lot of stories online which never appear in hard copy. In the Inquirer's case, they can often involve news that should have been reported, and it creates the appearance that it was reported. But at least the Inquirer has the date on the stories. You'll notice, also, that there are no identifying dates inside the story. Eric Scheie · August 30, 2007 05:53 PM I always liked the SUN's Page 3 Girls. NSFW BTW our local paper usually lists its on line stories that don't fully appear in print. M. Simon · August 30, 2007 09:07 PM "The Sun is one thing but isn't the Washington Times supposed to be a proper newspaper?" No. plunge · August 31, 2007 01:02 PM I just heard this story on my favorite radion station X96.com as a "News and Opinuendo" piece. Had to check ti out becuas eit smacked of urban legend! :) Cassius Seeley · September 10, 2007 11:06 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
September 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
September 2007
August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
lessons in tolerance for the intolerant
No shirt, no what? Clueless Cold War surrealism Overlords, overladies, whatever. We're doomed! Constitutional cummings and goings..... Better Late Than Never homeless veterans are everywhere, but who's counting? Not Fade Away Taking serious thinkers' serious thoughts seriously Democrats Not Following Orders
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Does the story appear in the print version? I think this may constitute yet more proof that print newspapers don't take their online versions seriously (or, at least, not as seriously as their print versions).