What Microsoft Yahoo merger? WSJ vs. NY Post
Google beware: Does Microsoft lust for Yahoo?
So claimed the New York Post, courtesy of unidentified “sources,” in a touted EXCLUSIVE.
Now, the Wall Street Journal is offering its own unidentified sources, with a different take:
Microsoft and Yahoo discussed a possible merger or other matchup that would pair their respective strengths, say people familiar with the situation. The merger discussions are no longer active, these people say, but that doesn't preclude the two companies from some other form of cooperation.
But, what is the real story, really?
Do the WSJ's unamed sources really trump the NY Post's unamed sources? So suggests popular blogosphere consensus.
Some are even calling for the NY Post's head!
Briar Dudley's blog, The Seattle Times:
The New York Post owes everyone a good follow-up story. You can't just drop a bombshell that jerks around 80,000 Microsoft and Yahoo! employees, rocks Wall Street and then fizzles before the day is over.
The Post should investigate -- and report -- whether its anonymous investment banker sources made any money off the huge run in YHOO caused by its story. If the Post doesn't do this, the SEC might. We don't need any more reporter subpoenas.
At the very least, the Post needs to go back to its sources and clarify if and when Microsoft and Yahoo! ended their latest round of merger discussions.
Dudley, however, does not provide any backup for why he knows for a seeming fact that the NY Post "got it wrong." He doesn't even indicate who, or what, "got it right," or even what "right" might, or might not, be.
What about the WSJ and its anonymous sources?
"People said," so said the WSJ, but it didn't say who those people are!
In WSJ and Yahoo’s peanut butter: Conspiracy? NO Ethical? NOT SO last November, I cited the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and its Code of Ethics regarding the identification of sources.
According to SPJ:
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth.
But truth is hard to come by, without naming names.
The SPJ on naming souces, or not:
Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information.
Perhaps readers ought to question stories based solely on unidentified sources, no matter the editorial masthead.
The reliability, or not, of a story based on unamed sources can not be determined, be it the WSJ, the NYT, the NY Post, Mark Cuban...
The NY Post Microsoft-Yahoo "story" is rumor-based, and so is the WSJ "story." Who really knows if either publication got anything right!
Are editorial rumor mills, no matter the provenance, really a good thing?
TAKE THE POLL: Google beware: Does Microsoft lust for Yahoo?