http://ramiropol.acercadelaeducacion.com.ar/?p=67

They had to go out and say something, if not they were going to lose big time.

A quick Google News search indicates that Rolling Stone, Urgente24, and Channel 26 all covered the incident pretty extensively, at least. And quite a bit of the coverage in the metro and regional dailies did register the stabbing as part of their coverage, though they did not report extensively on what led to the incident.

Rolling Stone interviewed the alleged stabbing victim, one Edisson Boudiwan, in his hospital bed, at length, and defended the supposed “cover-up” of the incident on its part as prudent journalism: It said it did not wish to contribute to the rumor-mill that quickly grew up around the incident.

“Respecto de la herida sobre la que se informó, repetimos, ya a las 3 de la mañana — con otra actualización a las 5 AM, tras información obtenida en el mismo hospital Rivadavia en que se destacaba su estado de salud estable — este medio no ofreció confirmaciones acerca de que se trataba de una herida cortante porque eso no fue precisado por ninguna fuente médica ni policial. En ese momento la confusión era mucha y los rumores también. Si bien fue un colaborador de esta revista quien acompañó la camilla hasta el puesto de la Cruz Roja con una visible mancha de sangre y que parte de este equipo vio escenas del incidente en las cámaras de circuito cerrado que había en la oficina de prensa (en las que sólo se veía un tumulto y el joven caído), no había hasta ahí más que rumores acerca de que era una herida cortante. Afirmar cómo se había producido la herida en ese momento, hubiera sido tan imprudente e irresponsable como hacerse eco de rumores más graves.”

What more can you ask of a major publication like Rolling Stone than to interview the man on the receiving end of the 10cm blade in question about what happened? And quote him extensively? Along with interviews with corroborating witnesses?

Heroes of Soviet citizen journalism or a rumor-amplifying echo chamber? A legitimate debate. Naturally, hip hop fans will want more detail on the incident than general-interest readers. But it does seem Rolling Stone actually did make a credible effort to provide that for its readers.

In any event, claiming that NO news organizations covered the incident in depth, in order to extol “citizen journalism”, seems like the very sort of baseless exaggeration that represents a principal risk of the phenomenon you are celebrating rather uncritically here.

Here in São Paulo, for example, after the TAM air disaster, the UOL news portal prominently and proudly displayed a “citizen journalism” photo showing someone leaping from a burning building struck by the malfunctioning jetliner, accompanied by many of the same claims you make here. But not only was it a Photoshop montage, it was an extremely CRUDE Photoshop montage that an awful lot of cheap Photoshop montage artists (I am one, although I do most of my crude montage work using the GIMP these days) recognized as such almost immediately.

The portal’s ombudsman issued a very stern warning to its “content managers” to exercise some professional due diligence next time. It is bad for business for a news organization to brand as fact what is actually fiction, she noted. The portal is owned by one of Brazil’s most prestigious newspapers, which does not need its brand associated with the act of uncritically passing along unfiltered rumors and fabrications.

I write that, in the other blog. Thanks for linking!
greetings
(sorry for my bad english, i am argentinian :s)