PressEthic

A blog on TechCrunch.com sent rumors running rampant through various media outlets. The blog suggested that Google had made a $1.6 billion offer to acquire YouTube. The Wall Street Journal then subsequently ran an article on the supposed offer, fueling numbers of other news outlets to report in kind. None of the articles actually cite any direct source of this information. The Journal article states:

A YouTube spokeswoman and a Google spokesman said they don't comment on "rumors and speculation."

After spotting the link to a USA Today article on Google news, I did a search and found two pages of links to articles on the subject posted today. This kind of rumor mill shouldn't be surprising, but is it responsible for news organizations to jump on the bandwagon of other publications without proof of such allegations?

Despite any repercussions this amount of press could have to any actual deals being made to acquire YouTube, it is interesting that most of the articles posit speculation about what such an acquisition would mean to the world of media. It is true that YouTube has had great interest of late from companies looking to acquire the small video startup. But is this sort of widespread speculation irresponsible?

TechCrunch posted the following today in response to the Journal article:

It looks like Michael Arrington’s report last night that Google is in talks to acquire YouTube may have been more than what he called “40% likely to be at least partially true.” The Wall St. Journal is reporting this morning that those talks are in fact underway, according to “a person familiar with the matter.”

In a time when anonymous sources are under scrutiny, how reliable is a report based on the comments by "a person familiar with the matter"? The title of that source is only slight more credible than simply saying "a person who might know something" or merely, "a person".

Newspapers have been known to sit on information in pursuit of credible validation. In the world of business, especially tech business, things can change very quickly making timely reporting vital. But, where should the bar be set in terms of verifiability? Should the volatility of the market determine its coverage? Or should reports on these types of speculative transactions be held to the same scrutiny as reports on social and political issues?