Tiernan Ray of Tech Trader Daily posted a piece the other day about what sounds like a great story: a rumor site confirming one report by using the same report!
Now, this sort of thing has probably happened over the years (though I hope not by MacRumors), and is in part the reason I generally dislike analysts reports. Analyst reports frequently seem to reflect the circulating rumors and when they consolidate and publish their reports, it frequently results in somewhat of an echo-chamber.
The MacRumors story in question cited a PCWorld article this week which described a new analyst report. The report, however, was actually not new and was a re-reporting of one published one week prior.
Without access to the reports, I took PCWorld’s word on it, which I think is a forgivable mistake, though it didn’t really change the meat of the story.
Now, Ray claims the following:
Even more hilarious, in the Macrumors post, the author says that the phantom report from today about updates to the Mac laptops and iPods is “consistent with whispers we’ve heard.” And he cites … ta da! A post from AppleInsider last week commenting on the original August six note. Oy vey.
The problem with this is that it’s clear that he followed the “consistent with whispers” link but didn’t actually read it.
I understand where the confusion might have come, as it does link back to our first reporting of the same analyst report. But that story also included an original source from us, which is what I was referencing:
While rumors have focused on new iPod nanos, we [MacRumors] have heard whispers that an iPod Touch update is also likely in the same timeframe.
So, obviously, this is a rather minor point and I initially just brushed it off, though after seeing it picked up elsewhere, I felt I had to respond.
I know some of you might think that it’s not that big a deal since these are all rumors, but I’ve said before, I take rumors very seriously. And MacRumors, as a rule, takes a particularly skeptical look at most claims.
I am glad you take rumors very seriously — because I think many of us do too — and I think its one of the reasons I read MacRumors before I head out to any other website to read. Also, there are links in a story for a reason: to read them. Often, the ones you put in on MacRumors are helpful background information, or some other context that’s great to see before indulging in the rumor itself.
Thanks for your caring, hard work.