So as I've read this thread I've noticed that a ton of people are pretty unhappy with the results of what happened and how Kotaku has handled this story, which may or may not be valid, but as I sit here I wonder what exactly does everyone think the best way to handle this really is for any of the major game news aggregates.
I guess I will start by posting my current feeling on the situation and say that I'm not angry at Kotaku because they never ran the story has 100% fact. It said rumor from the start and with some of the posts I've seen I get the impression that this is never good enough. In my personal preference when I read something that says "Rumor" I know it's at least something I should take with a grain of salt, but at least I get the information and I can get the information and feel somewhat informed.
Sure... in this case apparently the guy was wrong for whatever reason, and they gave some information that ended up being false, and for me I feel like they at least moderately owned up to it.
So GAF, I'm curious is it truly better to never run a story early if there is even the slightest chance that it turns out that it might not be 100% true, even if you get someone you believe to be legit, or someone who would be able to obtain and have access to that piece of knowledge?
Would you all really be happier knowing that the only news we got was straight from a PR press release or a conference and then reported by the journalists?
*Edit* I will add that the above statements are under the impression that information wasn't made up and their actually was some legitimacy within the source given. Obviously a story should never be published when the information is just bogus.
I guess I will start by posting my current feeling on the situation and say that I'm not angry at Kotaku because they never ran the story has 100% fact. It said rumor from the start and with some of the posts I've seen I get the impression that this is never good enough. In my personal preference when I read something that says "Rumor" I know it's at least something I should take with a grain of salt, but at least I get the information and I can get the information and feel somewhat informed.
Sure... in this case apparently the guy was wrong for whatever reason, and they gave some information that ended up being false, and for me I feel like they at least moderately owned up to it.
So GAF, I'm curious is it truly better to never run a story early if there is even the slightest chance that it turns out that it might not be 100% true, even if you get someone you believe to be legit, or someone who would be able to obtain and have access to that piece of knowledge?
Would you all really be happier knowing that the only news we got was straight from a PR press release or a conference and then reported by the journalists?
*Edit* I will add that the above statements are under the impression that information wasn't made up and their actually was some legitimacy within the source given. Obviously a story should never be published when the information is just bogus.