A frame doesn’t make a tablet: When journalism turns irresponsible

Google's Chrome OS. Not Google's tablet.

You see, as interesting as the OS concept is (and what possible use it has for tablets in the future) the news released yesterday had nothing to do with a tablet design or a possible mockup of a tablet by Google. It was simply a basic black border that literally framed the OS. But now, those same pictures are exploding all around the blogosphere with the titles “A First Look at Google’s iPad Killer” and “A Taste of What Google’s Tablet Will Look Like.” These titles aren’t merely misleading. They’re outright lies. Any journalist who even bothers to glance at the source material can easily tell so. It even states on the page that the renderings are in no way associated with possible tablet designs. The problem is that journalism and blogs are quickly speeding in opposite directions.

TechCrunch posted the article “A First Taste Of What The Google Tablet Will Look Like” last night. Thankfully, after listening to a commenter with the same concern as ours they changed the title to “A First Taste Of What The Google Tablet Interface Will Look Like” (although their post URL still says the deliciously SEO yet deceitful “Google Tablet Photos”). The article had nothing to do with Google’s potential tablet — it talked strictly about the interface. So why title your story something that it isn’t? To lure in clicks by posting a false title? One would think with TechCrunch’s web traffic that wouldn’t be necessary.

The Huffington Post takes irresponsibility to a whole new level. Not only do they title their post “Google Tablet (PICTURES): A First Look At Google’s ‘iPad Killer’” but they actually suggest that those pictures are “renderings of what a Google tablet might look like.” Most blogs come up with a moniker for devices, but to call renderings that have nothing to do with an actual tablet design the “iPad Killer” is just sensationalism. Worse, it’s entirely cheap and lame.

Gizmodo had the gumption to pose a question with their title “Is This How a Google Tablet Will Look in Action?” The emphasis is still on the action (or UI element) and they further go on to explain that the Chrome OS isn’t intended for any one “Google tablet” and the renderings are only “visual explorations of how a Chrome OS tablet UI might look in hardware.” Another tip of the hat goes to Engadget who properly titled their story “Google mum on Chrome OS touch support, Chromium devs show us how it might look anyway.” The story talks only about the Chrome OS and its potential for tablets. In other words, these articles don’t lie to their readers.

Now many of you may be saying that most of the internet and blogs aren’t journalism. That it is full of rumors and unsourced stories. You’d be right. It’s fine to post rumors as rumors — readers enjoy them — or even to post unconfirmed stories as long as you didn’t must make it up off the top of your head. But there should be a fine line when blogs who title themselves as news outlets outright lie to their readership. Even worse are the multiple readers who now believe that they’ve seen a Google tablet prototype. It’s a shame that sites this large can’t rely on providing fact-rich content in their articles to pull in traffic. Instead they have resorted to smoke and mirrors that leaves the reader with nothing tangible to take away — or even worse, taking away false information.