A few weeks ago, Om Malik published Flickr, Yahoo Deal Rumored. Today, Jerry Yang announced that Yahoo bought Flickr while on stage at PC Forum and the Flickr blog appears to be the official announcement, at least for now. Flickr-hoo! is Om’s note calling attention to the fact that he was proven right.
Well done.
In his initial Flickr-hoo! post, Om took a general swipe at “news.com” for mis-crediting bloggers — not in regard to this story; generally. I posted a comment asking why, and Om answered. In continuing the dialog, I found myself typing more than envisioned in a small comments window, so I moved my response over here.
Om wrote:
not an axe to grind – but every single time you guys get credits mixed up and never mention the bloggers who break the stories. and no its not me i am talking about there – it has happened so many times before that i get irked by it.
My response: “every single time” is quite a charge, and I see you’ve edited the main post to remove the initial swipe (thank you). In the future, I would urge you to speak up with specifics. You might also call or email the editorial team at CNET News.com about specifics — none of them are hard to reach.
More broadly… what is breaking a story? Is it mentioning the possibility first or the event itself?
You were the first (as far as I know) to say that Yahoo would buy Flickr. You were proved right. But your original post stated very clearly that this was an as-yet-unconfirmed rumor. Even the headline said “rumored.”
Quote: “Rumors are flying thick and fast in Silicon Valley: Yahoo is all set to buy Ludicorp, the company behind the hot photo blogging web service Flickr, for an undisclosed amount of money. Its not the first time rumors of these talks have made the rounds.”
Today, should you have cited whomever floated those earlier rumors? Did that person or people really earn the scoop? You went on: “At this point, it could all just be that–chatter.”
If you publish a rumor, without substantiation (even if you have proof, but decide you can’t share it), and then the rumor is true… that’s a scoop? What if the rumor is incorrect? What is it then?
Note: it may be tough to tell, but I am truly asking a question, and not just of Om. All readers and reporters (I make no distinction whether a person is reporting personally or professionally) need to find an answer (or answers?) to these questions. It might be easier for everyone if a rough consensus emerges. From all I can tell, Om broke this story, whatever that means. I’m asking here… what does it mean?
For example, there has been repeated chatter and public speculation and musing and even unsolicited advice surrounding Yahoo and Six Apart. (All results from first page of this search.) If Yahoo does buy Six Apart in the future, however unlikely it seems with 360 set to appear shortly, who got “the story”?
If gossip is public, does that make it any more true?