1. Thats just poor journalism. To hide behind the excuse that the photo in question was hard to find is pretty pathetic. Thats the whole point of investigating a story, is to follow all leads to a logical conclusion, not follow the first lead and then stop trying. Sounds like they knew people don't look cruise and they stumbled across something they were certain would be a big story and they ran with it before actually verifying it. Having said that, I'm not surprised at all thats what they did and it just reinforces my opinion that stories you read about on the internet are to be taken with a grain of salt.

Posted at 2:22PM on Jun 25th 2008 by Kevin

2. To be fair, I wasn't trying to defend Slate by saying the picture was difficult to find. They use Getty and AP regularly, and I am really surprised they didn't think to check both archives. As a big online magazine, you would just assume they had.

It is also kind of funny that, as per the article, UA doesn't remember where they obtained the photo, when Getty is the only place it appears.

But I thought it was worth mentioning that the photo *isn't* one that is readily available -- I probably did more research than Slate did, honestly. When I wrote the story up initially, I even included the caveat of "Who really knows if it is the exact photo UA used?" Slate's conclusion was hasty, ill-informed and regrettable -- but somewhat understandable given that no other photo of Claus von Stauffenberg really resembles Tom Cruise. But again, it doesn't really excuse their shoddy research.

I don't think that Internet stories are necessarily suspect -- and I don't say that just because that's where I write. Good research is essential in *all* writing, and the temptation to do a fast and dirty expose can overcome even the New York Times.
Everyone is too eager to be Woodward and Bernstein, even if the only person you are bringing down is Tom Cruise.

Posted at 4:04PM on Jun 25th 2008 by Elisabeth

3. ummm, not just the internet anymore, my friend.

all media outlets are suspect. Either for sensationalism or just the fact that they are owned by large for-profit companies (like AOL...heh). Actually the internet may be the last source of semi-unbiased, accurate news on earth...depending on where you look.

Don't trust anyone over 30!!!!!

dammit, wait...i'm 31.

Don't trust anyone over 35!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted at 2:52PM on Jun 25th 2008 by Moo

4. I'm sure they're upset . . . all the way to the bank. It may not be 100 percent true that there's no such thing as bad publicity -- but it's about 99 percent true.

Posted at 2:58PM on Jun 25th 2008 by Gina

5. Elisabeth, just to clarify, I definitely wasn't saying you did a poor job. My disdain is directed squarely at Slate who initially "broke" the story. And Moo, I wholeheartedly agree. My point is simply that the number of disreputable "news" sites on the internet are much easier to access than the many of the print sources. I may know that the Rockville Reporter is pretty biased and unfair, but unless you live in Rockville then you aren't grabbing a copy of it on your way to work. However, everyone has access to any website, so the number of people that can be influenced by shoddy online reporting is much greater. Unfortunately, the collective reputations of "reputable" news sources are all on the downside, so I guess I should have been clearer in saying that I don't trust anything that I don't hear out of the horses mouth itself.

Posted at 7:16PM on Jun 25th 2008 by Kevin

6. Aw, I knew you weren't. You're always a cool man in the comments! :D I just thought, perhaps, I seemed too apologetic of Slate and should clarify for everyone reading.

Every journalist should be required to take a class with my old American history professor. She made me doubt everything. Apparently, if you don't research where someone went to college, what political party they are, and what ice cream they liked growing up, you won't be able to accurately assess their perspective...hmmm....that might explain my trust issues.

Posted at 7:26PM on Jun 25th 2008 by Elisabeth

7. fair enough, and I'm with you there...

Posted at 7:50PM on Jun 25th 2008 by Moo