Who at IB posted Russert’s death on Wikipedia?
Don Day June 15th, 2008
The first place to report the news of the death of Tim Russert wasn’t NBC - or the New York Times… it was likely Wikipedia. Someone edited Russert’s entry at 3:01pm ET - a full 23 minutes before Drudge, NYT and the NY Post picked up the story. NBC broke into programming on the network and on MSNBC at 3:39pm ET.
As Lost Remoters have commented, it’s interesting to note where the early Wikipedia edit came from: Internet Broadcasting. Someone with the IP address 66.187.200.74 made a series of six edits - first noting his death, then systematically changing the entry’s tense. A second IB user - 66.187.202.71 also made two edits before the news broke wide.
IB runs the websites for NBC’s Local Media Division (aka the O&Os). Affiliates were not broadly informed early - our first hint came from the NYT.
The big question here might not be “who” - but “why.”
19 Comments Add your own
1. Adam | June 15th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Don’t remember where I saw this but someone was saying they heard it on Twitter a little while before Wikipedia was even updated. Someone Twittered something like “word here at NBC is we lost Russert.”
2. LocalNews | June 15th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
CBS sent out an alert to stations to standby for a special report. The NYT report and the NBC cutin came after that alert, but the Wikipedia entry was already updated. I wonder if the other networks were waiting for NBC to go first…. waiting for Brokaw to get in?
3. Mitch | June 15th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Who? Someone in an NBC O&O.
Why? Who cares! If it’s factually correct what difference does it make? Perhaps some low level NBC employee who edits Wikipedia in his spare time.
4. Aaron | June 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
It certainly raises the question of when it’s acceptable to “sit” on a news story, particularly involving the death of someone famous.
Presumably NBC News wanted to notify Russert’s wife & son (who were in Italy) before broadcasting the news. I’d say that’s the ethically responsible thing to do.
If someone at IB was notified of Russert’s death early (due to IB’s relationship with WRC and the other O&O’s), instructed to not post anything until the death was announced by NBC, but started editing wikipedia anyway, that’s a serious lapse in judgment.
Not to mention the question about whether it’s OK to update Wikipedia with content you’re getting paid to post on your employer’s website.
5. Anonymous | June 15th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
It would be one of the few correct things initially placed on Wikipedia, although the edit “wOOt! The _____ is dead” on Saddam Hussein’s entry was on the money, if not a little crude.
6. anonymous | June 15th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
someone i work with got a text from TMZ.com about the death before NBC sent the email to affiliates about the cutin.
i think NBC took a minute to get on the air because they wanted to go with Brian Williams, but couldn’t get a sat feed set up in afghanistan and so they went with Tom Brokaw.
7. Anonymous | June 15th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
This reminds me of how the BBC will not report a major Windsor death until the palace allows it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001/aug/13/mondaymediasection.themonarchy
8. Anonymous | June 15th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
#5, there was also the weirdly prescient posting about wrestler Chris Benoit’s wife 14 hours before her body was discovered.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Benoit_double_murder_and_suicide#Wikipedia_controversy
9. tdc | June 15th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
absolutely no disrespect for the man or his family, but get use to it.
anyone from an emt to a flatfoot at the scene can now break news.
btw- i smell a rat - the perp (who happens to work with computers everyday) wouldn’t realize the ip would be traced?
10. mullah cimoc | June 15th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Am it russert just the fat and corruption media operative?
ameriki need to googling: “mighty wurlitzer” +cia
then to understanding usa not the free press.
am it russert media collaborator of war criminal but loving the praise of man?
11. Anonymous | June 15th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
CBS stations were notified well before NBC’s Special Report. In fact, a co-worker stepped into my office to tell me about Russert’s death, and I spent what seemed like a half hour or so flipping back and forth between CBS and NBC waiting for someone to get on the air with it.
CBS waited until NBC came on, then went on within a minute or so afterward. Waiting for Russert’s network to go on first seemed like the right thing to do.
12. George C | June 16th, 2008 at 7:43 am
NBC affils had a heads up about that time. They all sat waiting for Brokaw to surface, over a half hour at least.
13. jen | June 16th, 2008 at 10:04 am
When Wikipedia first posted the story, the date of death was June 14, 2008 - the next day. (He died on June 13.)
14. FatFighter | June 16th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
I know it’s news and anyone can break it, but I think when it comes to the death of someone like Russert, it’s just out of respect to wait for the network to announce the death of one of their own. It’s not a situation where other media should be competing to get it first.
15. Anonymous | June 16th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
@FatFighter: Which isn’t what happened anyway, so your point is kind of lost.
What would the reaction be if it had been Twittered? I’m curious.
16. Anonymous | June 16th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
@7 ANON: the Royal Family has had nearly thirty years ro acquaint itself with computer networking and advancing media. It has chosen perhaps the WISEST path in that it presents an ARCHIVAL version of it’s existance and a gradual yet never complete merging of itself with it’s subjects. By contrast, this is simply impossible to achieve in any other manner. The world has quite simply lost it’s life to itself.
17. Anonymous | June 18th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Here’s what happened. CBS stations got an e-mail alerting them to stand by for a special report. NBC then called the other networks and asked them to hold off until they could notify Russert’s family. The NY Times then sent an e-mail alert that Russert had died,M
18. Anonymous, continued | June 18th, 2008 at 10:42 am
The NY Times then sent an e-mail alert that Russert had died, QUOTING HIS FAMILY. Then at least one NBC-owned station sent out an e-mail alert saying Russert had “apparently” died. Some CBS-owned stations sent out e-mail alerts attributing the news to the Times. People at CBS’ NY station were told to hold off pending “official confirmation from CBS News.” In my mind, once an NBC station reported it, all bets were off. It was fair game to report. (At least two networks, btw, reported Ed Bradley’s death before Katie did her special report. So there is no such thing as waiting for the deceased person’s network to go first our of respect.)
19. Aaron | June 18th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
But the question remains — why did someone at IB post the news to Wikipedia (unattributed, no less), BEFORE the NY Times or anyone else reported it?
Why sit on a story for your own website while posting something unattributed to wikipedia?
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed