For the someone not wanting to give accurate informations dates back to the height and error of shock jock radio / writing. Hype, it was called back in the late 1990's. Hype. It got individuals stirred up even tho the information wasn't exactly true when it was written in a news article or said over the radio it got individuals to write into that particular newspaper or call into that particular radio station. Sometime the viewers went off topic and gave the Station other ideas to pursue. Sometimes and this still happens now (except I can not give an accurant article at this time) that an opinion is written into the story byline of an Journalism article and this story spreads like wildfire thru out the web and on TV but when you go to the orginal story you discover some of the information that had spread onto the web in the early hours of the event that most or half of it was untrue.
So, in closing while I still see this as an continue problem on blogs postings where someone quotes an article that has no basic 101 journalism standards ('get the fact's ma'am, just the facts) I wanted to see if there was anyone besides myself that believed that when writing about an article they read, and then posted information about the subject matter, should they post accurate information proving with out a doubt that this is not a shock jock hyped up story? Or do the latter which I was taught in Prep College Classes.