Earlier today, Cult of Mac writer Nicole Martinelli linked to a TMZ piece showing a photo of what appeared to be a very weak, very sick Steve Jobs. The photo looks doctored to me, but TMZ is reporting them as factual photographs.
In her article, Martinelli wrote:
We’re holding out hope that they are fakes.
After the post went live and gained a few dozen comments, Cult of Mac editors replaced Martinelli’s byline with one reading “Staff Writer.”
A few moments later, the story was updated with this editor’s note:
We have pulled the TMZ photo.
We had posted it because we felt it had clear news value, but we understand they are upsetting pictures.
Apologies if we offended anyone.
This isn’t the first time Apple-centric sites[1. Although, at the time of this writing, I can only find this story repeated on Cult of Mac.] have published stories about Steve Jobs’ health.
This issue last came up in February, when I wrote:
Writing about rumors concerning Steve Jobs’ health is not only unprofessional, but it is disrespectful.
In my post, I called out Cult of Mac for this story, in which the site re-posted the “Jobs has weeks to live” rumor that was circulating at the time. In it, Leander Kahney wrote:
We don’t know whether the information is correct, but we certainly hope not. Best wishes Steve.
In February, I wrote that websites that publish such stories shouldn’t, out of respect for Steve Jobs and his family. I still believe that, but something new came to mind today:
Writers who post such stories doesn’t seem to care if what they publish is accurate or not.
Accuracy — truth in reporting — is the foundation on which all good journalism is based. If reporters do not share the truth, they are not truthfully sharing facts[2. Now, covering technology means covering rumors, at least in the Apple ecosystem. I get that. I understand that reporting on rumors is a tricky area, and can lead in passing of incorrect information. I think rumor-reporting deserves a pass.] with their readers.
The fact that the site retracted the photo is good, but the bit saying they believed it had “clear news value” goes to my point — Cult of Mac’s writing staff isn’t made up of people who care about doing real journalism. Everything about how the staff has behaved about Jobs’ health points to something else entirely — that traffic-grabbing is more important than respectful, accurate journalism.
As much as this type of things rubs me the wrong way, the way Cult of Mac disguised it really disgusts me.
While pulling the photo and the writer’s name is cowardly, the bit at the end — “We’re holding out hope that they are fakes” — is just revolting. It’s almost as if Martinelli was apologizing for writing the story in the first place. Of course, there’s another solution to that problem — passing on the damn story.
I really think that writers who pull the trigger on such stories don’t give a crap if what they are writing is accurate. I don’t care to read that sort of reporting, especially when the topic is so tasteless.
Cult of Mac has the same problem now as it did in February. I don’t regret removing the site from my RSS feed reader. I trust I’m not missing much.