Here is a true story about a journalist who checked his facts but misinformed his readers anyway. Only the names and non-critical details have been changed
A reporter for a trade journal covering the, say, "sandwich industry" (call the journal the "Bacon & Lettuce Times", or BLT for short) wanted to mention a particular company in his story (call the company "Pickles'R'Us"). So the reporter for the BLT (call him Mr. Tomato) phones up a Pickles'R'Us spokesman for some quotes. Now Pickles'R'Us got some press a few years ago, because one of its co-founders (call him Ronald McDonald) was a moderately well-known person in the sandwich business. During the course of the interview the company spokesman told Mr. Tomato that Ronald McDonald hadn't been involved with the company for quite some time. In his closing question, Mr. Tomato asked the spokesman: "Is it correct to say that Ronald McDonald is a co-founder of Pickles'R'Us?" The spokesman said emphatically: "It is correct to say that he was a co-founder. It is not correct to imply that he is in any way still involved with the company"
Well, the BLT published the story, which was only tangentially related to Pickles'R'Us. Indeed, the only mention of Pickles'R'Us was this: "For more information on this topic, visit the website of Pickles'R'Us, a company co-founded by Ronald McDonald".
This is factually correct, but misleading. Anybody who reads this statement in its given context would almost certainly conclude that Ronald McDonald is still involved with Pickles'R'Us. The two parties no longer have any kind of business relationship so it is incorrect for the public to draw an association between the two parties. Pickles'R'Us doesn't deserve to benefit from Ronald McDonald's good reputation, nor should it suffer from any mistakes he might make. And vice versa.
In fact, this isn't about a two-bit trade journal. The BLT is really the Wall Street Journal. "Mr. Tomato" should have known better.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 24, 2002 12:28 PM