Mosaic ImmunoEngineering is a nanotechnology-based immunotherapy company developing therapeutics and vaccines to positively impact the lives of patients and their families.

Reply New Message

Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message

bankerson

Rank: Treasurer [?]

Points: 22820 [?]

Votes: 138 Score: 2.9 [?]

Your Vote:

Please Log In to Vote

Did you know? You can earn activity points by filling your profile with information about yourself (what city you live in, your favorite team, blogs etc.)

Was this a strategy

posted on Oct 27, 2010 05:13PM

to divert attention of the BoD away from legal matters? Was someone trying to manipulate the stock for financial gain? Was this just a mistake by Reuters? Or some mistake by PTSC? I mean where did Reuters get this info in the first place?

Now that's all fine and dandy, but it seems like Ken Lay's death prompted confusion at Reuters, also. Here's the correction:

Corrects and recasts paragraph two to show that a spokeswoman for the Lay family did not give the cause of Lay's death. It was given by another source.

So Wikipedia can get confused because inital reports were varied about the cause of Lay's death, but Reuters can't even identify who gave them the information they used in their report?

And journalism has sunk to a new low.

Here is the whole story:http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CUxFHKM1sTwJ:www.jasonunger.com/2006/07/10/the-irony-reuters-slams-wikipedias-credibility-issues-own-correction/+credibility+of+reuters&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Jason Unger

The Irony: Reuters Slams Wikipedia's Credibility, Issues Own Correction

Posted by junger - 07/10/06 at 07:07:14 pm

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

The most classic part of this whole Wikipedia-Ken Lay-Reuters story (as described here and here) is the fact that the original Reuters story, which said Lay's death "underscored the challenges facing online encyclopaedia Wikipedia," contained a major error. As posted on the story:

Ken Lay's death prompts confusion on Wikipedia

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The death of former Enron Corp. chief Ken Lay on Wednesday underscored the challenges facing online encyclopaedia Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/), which as the news was breaking offered a variety of causes for his death.

Lay, 64, died of an apparent heart attack, according to a pastor at the Lay family's church in Houston. It was six weeks after a jury found him guilty of fraud in one of the biggest corporate scandals in U.S. history. A family spokeswoman said that Lay passed away early on Wednesday morning in Aspen.

Now that's all fine and dandy, but it seems like Ken Lay's death prompted confusion at Reuters, also. Here's the correction:

Corrects and recasts paragraph two to show that a spokeswoman for the Lay family did not give the cause of Lay's death. It was given by another source.

So Wikipedia can get confused because inital reports were varied about the cause of Lay's death, but Reuters can't even identify who gave them the information they used in their report?

And journalism has sunk to a new low.

Related Posts:

July 10, 2006 | In Web | 18 Comments

18 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

[...] I was thinking of titling this as Reuters Sucks, but decided that would be too harsh. As I was reading Slashdot tonight, I saw this: Reuters offers correction to Wikipedia slam. junger writes "Reuters put out a hit piece on Wikipedia, saying that the encyclopedia wasn't credible in 'covering' the breaking news of the death of Enron's Ken Lay, but then Reuters has to correct their own story because they couldn't properly identify one of their sources." [...]