In his attack on the New York Times’ criticism of publish-first, verify-later tech blogging, Jeff Jarvis says “this discussion should be about so much more than just errors and corrections. This is about new and better ways to gather, share, and verify news.” In the process, he defends a very poor way of gathering and sharing news, and a mediocre way of verifying it.

A subtle equation, in which the benefits are weighed against the risks, ought to dictate when to publish a story. Sometimes it makes sense — i.e., is in the public interest — to publish when a story is single- or anonymously-sourced; at other times, it makes sense to do some more reporting, get more sources, and then go. Making a practice out of the first approach is irresponsible.

Citing Nick Denton’s defense of the practice is bizarre, though it makes sense if “24-hour cable news, where the viewer must become the editor,” is the model. Whether that should be the model is another question.

Starting in the early 90s, cable TV news embraced a round-the-clock news cycle; replaced reporters with talking heads; decided to neglect an array of stories in favor of a few sensationalistic eyeball-grabbers; and exchanged genuine reportage for here-we-are-outside-the-courthouse-style pseudo-reporting. Cable TV news is where broadcast journalism went to die, and its logic and imperatives have dragged other forms of journalism along with it.

Bryan Lam’s quote is telling — “If we don’t have rumors, what do we have as journalists? You have press releases. So maybe there is some honor in printing rumors.” Journalists have reporting. He’s not a journalist.