We live in an age where information is produced, then copied, at lightening speed. Verifiable sources can be difficult to track and even harder to tack onto an "expanding" storyline. Whether this applies to business in their attempt to position their brand in the market or public policy conversations as weighted by the media - verifiable information should be tracked.
If someone posts a defamatory story about Company XYZ and it is untrue, how do they respond? They simply find the document which verifies their account of the story and present it as primary evidence. I know that sounds a big legalistic, but it's an important point. Word of mouth advertising, positive or negative, can be incredibly difficult to contain. Image, once begun rolling down that snowball hill, can be incredibly time-consuming (and expensive) to repair. Even if the story wasn't factual the damage left behind can be long-lasting.
My thoughts on this subject were triggered by a story posted on CNN which was presented as factual and (through light research) was cast as unsound and over-reaching. The CNN article can be read here CNN article on drug use and risky AIDS incidence. My response can be ready at my Facebook, here David's Facebook page
