NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- I love Rolling Stone. So much so that I stepped out, defending the magazine after it put the Boston Marathon bomber on its cover. But the magazine made, within the context of the situation, an egregious error in Friday's "7 Things You Should Know About Beats Music."
In January, Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre-founded Beats Electronics fires up its (most likely very worthy) subscription music service.
I have already claimed my name:
Must Read: Create a Process for ProfitabilityRocco Pendola (@Rocco_TheStreet) December 7, 2013
I'm not sure if the Rolling Stone miscue requires a full-blown retraction or if the original article simply should have included the context it lacks. Maybe both. Either way, lack of context has become a hallmark of journalism 2.0.
And that's not OK.
I wish I could gloss over the error with it is what it is, but I can't. Because it's not an it is what it is proposition.
Point #7 in the Rolling Stone piece says:
Beats-style curation means "real people recommending your songs, not some kind of Pandora-like Internet robot . . . Essentially, somebody would go through all the things that go through the scientific algorithm curation and call 'bulshit (sic) ,'" says a source familiar (sic) with the service ...
That's just wrong as it pertains to Pandora. It paints a pathetically inaccurate picture. You can't exonerate Rolling Stone because a "source" said it; the writer should be the one calling "bull shit," as it were.