Funny. But the original story was not true.

Two quotes from the Consumerist "co-managing editor" below:

"They say the screengrab is "doctored" and "fraudulent." We say, who cares?"

and

"It doesn't matter if it was "true," it spoke the truth..."

Yeah, it does matter if it's not true. You need to go back to j-school (if you ever went).

Is this a consumerist site or just a place to submit and post funny stories that may or may not be factual?

It's looking more and more like the latter. And losing credibility every day.

below as posted by the co-managing editor? Unbelievable. Go back to J-school, if you ever went.

"We say, who cares?"
"It doesn't matter if it was "true," it spoke the truth."

No, the truth is that the original "story" was not the truth. The facts as presented were false. The fact that the falsehood makes for a better story is not relevant to the FACTS. End of story.

Mark this as a turning point.

Which is it? Do you want to be treated like a news organization, or whine when someone calls your funny picture inaccurate?

Even this, with new wording... it sounds kinda funny... like... she had to think about also jumping off the bridge.. "Ill be right with you" after contemplating.

I dunno... I think they're being too subtle....

Other than Phil's posts none of the problems I have bother me that much. Unlike a problem I have with Verizon or Comcast, I don't have to come back to Consumerist should the problems get that big.

Regarding reading the comments, I should hope Ben, Meg and the team read the comments. Maybe not each and every one, but we as readers are their customers. Reading the comments can give them an overview of how we feel about the site, the articles they post, and how we feel about them as a business. Given Ben's comment below, it doesn't look like "they are taking this seriously". I'm willing to give them a pass - hopefully it was an oversight, and everyone can learn from it. Time will tell.

@squinko:
And just what business is that of yours? none, case closed.

To me it implies that somebody has an agenda and whether something is true or not is less important than supporting that agenda.

Consumerist should have issued a correction without saying who cares

This is a joke, right?

So consumerist falls for an obvious (and rather simple) hoax, posts it to the Internet, then when the hoax is revealed, says it's OK because even though it isn't true, it expresses a sentiment you wish was true?

Sad.

On a sidenote: When this article was first posted, the comment system was down. If it had been working properly, I'm sure there would be many more comments agreeing with "andysrc".

@ThomFabian: IT'S A JOKE! It's saying that CSR work sucks and working for AT&T is even worse.

Since they have stories weekly about how shitty AT&T is and how often people complain, imagine how shitty that job is??

Why are you people so nitpicky? It's not like the NYT put the wrong name of a seriel killer and some random guy got beat up in the street because of it.

Please take the stick out your ass.

They said "It doesn't matter if it was 'true,' it spoke the truth" which would, at least to me, seemd to imply something more serious than it just being funny.

Right, it spoke the truth. Wait, what truth is that? What truth did the faked transcript speak?

Its hard to stomach the thought of having to put quotes around "true" and then saying it doesn't matter whether the reported transcript actually happened or not.

@squinko:
I've stopped giving Phil pageviews, but from looking at the main page, he appears to be getting more views than other writers - I'm sure the headlines have a lot to do with it.

I feel that consumerist over the past year has gone downhill, but still is a good source of information. I think the best thing to do would be for Ben to apologize and get the rest of the staff on board with getting good, truthful and accurate stories.

The truthful stories are entertaining enough - there's not need to skip fact checking to get a good story.

First: there was no consumer issue at risk with the initial post, but consumerist should "take seriously" the notion that it ran a false lead as truth.

Second: AT&T offers no proof that the rep does not want to die, only proof that she did not claim it to the customer. Having worked customer service, I assure you the question is still in doubt.

@mikesfree: You, sir, need to take the pole out of your ass.

It's a blog, on the internet, that gives good information and sometimes makes jokes. Jokes are funny, and we laugh at them.

This doesn't take away from the rest of the stories, it just means in that one case, there was joking going on. To say that because of one joke post on a blog owned by Consumer's Union makes everything they put out a lie is not only a stretch of logic, but pretty much overall nitpickiness and anal retentiveness. Saying this would be the same as me saying that because we disagree on this one topic, one of us should die and stop wasting the other's oxygen. Except that would be stupid too, to make that jump. See how logic and normal escalation of things works?

Here's a wetnappy. Please wipe off the pole when you remove it so we don't all get sick. Please, think of the children.

As for Phil, when he first started out, he did go overboard with his articles, but I think he's calmed down a lot since then. I'm sure the criticisms that were posted helped to point out his errors, but if people don't like him they shouldn't click on his stories. If he isn't getting page views (which are how blogs get money), then he isn't doing his job and that will look bad to his bosses. There are better ways of doing this than whinging on about it.

@andysrc: The story, while humorous, was presented as news, i.e., true. I'd appreciate a 'humor' label for news parodies, doctored screenshots, and the like.

@squinko:
Because some stories are good. Ben's normally are, as are Chris' and most of Laura's.

Phil normally takes a small issue and tries to make a federal case about it. I don't even both reading his stories anymore, since the headline doesn't match what really happened.

The freemoneyfinance articles are simply repeating what I've seen a thousand times on the internet at other personal finance sites - nothing new, nothing interesting.

@mikesfree:

Meaning why would someone read any form of journalism like this? If this is the consumer union view, I am going to let my consumer reports mag run out too.

It doesn't matter if it was "true,"

I am done here.

Second, why is it that it took At&T literally 24 hours to throw up a PR report about how the rep didn't want to die, yet all the other problems they have (including the fact there is no "one system" for all the various areas and companies they've sucked up over the years which makes us all call 84 numbers to start and then get trasnferred 25 times by people who have no idea where to transfer us) are never fixed? At&T needs to concentrate of the real issues and stfu about stupid stuff like this.

Also, post was funny, if a bit old by the time it got posted here, and I still laughed.

I imagine it also does damage to the power of the Consumerist in influencing corporations to do the right thing. If they print lies and say they don't care, then companies can simply say that the site prints lies to entertain people and their stories have no credibility.

@ovalseven: ...and I don't think it's the PR guy that misses the point in this case.

@andysrc: Yeah, the "it doesn't matter if it was 'true'" comment kinda rubbed me the wrong way.

I come here for news not humor.

That's the same line Rush Limbaugh took at the end of his show when he realized that he had fallen for and be railing against a fake Obama quote.

I am also reminded of a Fox lawsuit - defending their right to lie:

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre's claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.

[www.democraticunderground.com]

@andysrc:
I agree.
I guess we should now take any stories posted on the consumerist with a grain of salt since they have decided that the truth does not matter. I guess there is no reason to take anything here seriously anymore. Good job consumerist destroying your credibility.

Who is to say that AT&T (Al and Two Temps) didn't doctor this release to avoid a public relations disaster?

If some evil corporation fudged the truth like this, you'd be up in arms. Sad when I'm starting to trust AT&T more than what I read on Consumerist.