Alaska Blogger Rumor Test

I've seen lots of people accusing Alaska 'Progressive' bloggers of "knowingly posting false rumors." In our defense, I and others have said things like, "They almost always say it's a rumor, they've challenged each other when someone's gone overboard, often the 'rumors' have proved correct or were never disproven, or they have eventually acknowledged the rumor was false."

So Gryhpen at the Immoral Minority this morning has a rumor that we can test out in the next weeks or months. He's written:

Exclusive! Sarah and Todd Palin are Splitsville!

Earlier this week one of my best sources claimed to have explosive new information for me.

It took all week for us to finally get together, but last night we finally sat down for an amazing conversation. And what I heard made my jaw drop.

According to my source Sarah is finished with Todd and has decided to end their marriage. . .

The main test will be what happens in the next weeks or months. Do the Palins get divorced or does their marriage stay intact? Even that isn't a perfect test. Sure, if they announce this week they are splitting, then we'll have to give it to Gryphen that his source was right.

But his rumor is about something that is going to happen, not something that already happened, so his post and subsequent publicity on it could affect whether it does or doesn't happen. It could put more pressure on the family that causes things to follow the prediction, or it could cause the couple to hang in there and keep the marriage going to prove the bloggers and media are wrong.


Is the rumor qualified or stated as a fact?

The headline of the post is written as though it is a known fact. In the post itself the claim is qualified by "according to my source..."

Personally, I wouldn't post something like this. First, it's personal stuff about a FORMER public official. Second, if it is true, it means the family is going through very difficult times. When people are having marital difficulties, a lot is said and tested but until they take official action, they can change their minds many times. Third, the rest of the world, in my view of things, should leave them alone to work it out. (Good friends, of course, should be there for support as needed.)

Fourth, any publicity on a topic like this simply complicates an already difficult situation.

But that's my opinion. I could also make an argument for publishing. In any case, the world of journalism - and I include television and newspapers as well as blogs in this case - is as much if not more about money and ratings as it is about news. That has led to celebrity gossip scooping and paparazzi and all the other unfortunate practices we see today. But along with that there are also probably important news stories that do get covered because of the competition.

So Gryphen is merely part of an American 'news' tradition here. And the tradition wouldn't continue if a lot of people didn't pay to get this sort of news. So the public is also responsible. I would note that the Immoral Minority does not carry ads. It does take Paypal donations, but I doubt that Gryphen is in this to get rich.

And one could charge that I'm taking part in the exploitation myself by doing this post. I don't know what unconscious motivations lurk deep in me, but I do believe that my real interest here is to turn this into one test of one Alaskan blogger's story and not as a sneaky way to put the story on my blog. I even thought of mentioning the story without names or details. But that would make it difficult when looking back, to test. The story is out anyway. Perhaps my post can refocus some people's attention to the whole business of publishing rumors.

Gryphen has put himself out there. We can try* from a story like this one to test whether he is
1. Running with unsupported rumors just to be sensational
2. Using a solid source to report a big story early
3. There are other options like "affecting the story by writing about it" though I'm not sure how we can test that.

Obviously, the story is more complicated than either it happens or it doesn't. If it happens in two years, was the story accurate? Even if it happens next week, we don't know Gryphen's motivation. I'll arbitrarily set a three months deadline. If there is no divorce filing, then this was a premature or incorrect story. For the Palins' sake, I hope that Gryphen will have to post a mea culpa.


In any case, he's put it out there. Whether you agree with what he's done or not, let's use this as a test of one Alaskan blogger's reliability. And perhaps a basis for a discussion on what we should post, shouldn't post, and why.


[UPDATE: Sunday morning: Dennis at the Alaska Report reports that Palin's attorney says this rumor is completely false. Surprise. You can see the whole post at the link. Here's the last paragraph of the the attorney's letter to Gryphen at Immoral Minority:

Others have raised the issue of honorifics already. I've always questioned why former judges and governors etc. still are called by their title. In this case, since Palin quit the job of governor, it seems inappropriate.]