First clue it was a hoax: "But when I saw him lying there I just thought, "What a b******," Maćkowiak was quoted as saying."

I didn't realize English was their first language over there.

Everything is a hoax nowadays. And because there are no editors everything is rushed onto the news sites. Kangaroo Found with Human Baby in Pouch

Obviously, this points out why you cannot believe everything you read on the internet. It is not true journalism, nothing is verified. Just get it out there for the sensationalism. Any one can put anything on the internet, but it is VERY SAD that any major news station airs this without verification.

“Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.” -Benjamin Franklin

I don't think there is ANY true jounalism anymore. It doesn't sell papers, so to speak.

Publish now, ask questions later! (Or was this story first reported on April 1st?)

I like how our media does research before printing, but what can you expect from news delivered for free? You get what you pay for

Here a hoax, there a hoax, everywhere a hoax hoax! I bet this article about the hoax is a hoax! :-/

"The Dentist" starring Corbin Bernsen. I believe that he took her tongue out, too.

Syndicate THIS!

I wasn't that surprised UNTIL I read the list of "numerous U.S. news sites that picked up the story". Looks like they fooled EVERYONE. How sad to see the journalism industry fall apart and lose all sense of ethics. I sometimes wonder if there's actually a human being at the controls of many major news groups.

Now there's a industry in need of "bailing out", lol.

Actually,thats not suspicious,presumably it would have either been a translation by a translator,or by the "victim" as its very common for people in Poland to speak English. What should have tipped us off to a Hoax was that it was on the home page of Fox News. ;-)

Seriously though,Fox has plenty of company from most other american news outlets. They all SHOULD have checked rather than just grabbing a story and running with it. MSNBC should be aplauded for running this article. Is there such an article on the Fox News and CNN websites? I would hope there is! Making a mistake happens,but when it does ,a prominent retraction should follow as soon as possible!

No appropriate, prominent retraction/apology so far!

My post on the original article was; nobody is not going to realize what was going on after the first two or three were pulled. It pays to post using logic - posters who think with emotions should come with footnotes alerting readers they are not balanced.

So much for fact checking!

No one knows reality anymore. We read sensational stories, we watch sensational tv, we listen to sensational news reports, we play sensational video and computer games... where did that phrase "... life is but a dream..." come from? Are we even here?

Among the numerous U.S. news sites that picked up the story were Fox News, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, Huffington Post, Yahoo! News, the New York Post, and The New York Daily News.

I noticed they failed to mention MSN which is where I read the story

Danimyl, exactly what I was thinking. That's also where I heard the story too. Funny how they tried to not pin it on themselves. It looked really stupid and they obviously don't check sources. Pitiful.

Yeah, no kidding danimyl. I read it here on MSN too. Whatever happened to "vetting" stories? I often read stories here on MSN where I say to myself, "I don't think we're hearing the whole story." Or else the story is just bogus like this one was.

The first question popping in my mind is what was the original source of this story. MSNBC does not bother to ask that question nor explain how they neglected to fact check before disseminating on line. But thank you, MSNBC, for informing us of your incompetence, anyway.

Exactly, they say absolutely NOTHING about running this same story right here on MSN! What a freaking joke all of the media has been lately!!!! Just goes to show you certainly CAN'T believe everything you read, not even from alledgedly credible news sources!!!! What makes this stink soooo much as we the public too often bite right on hook, line and sinker. The amount of name calling, back biting and arguing we all have done over these "news stories" is incredible. Maybe now we can tone down the attitudes when commenting on the stories we read!!!!!

The fact the article says "Too Good To Be True" leaves me feeling that Erin got her butt dumped here recently too...

I suspected a scam. Corbin Bernsen starred in a movie as a dentist that did that very thing to his wife because she was sleeping around. I believe it was called 'The Dentist'.

I was just thinking that I read this on MSN too. This "Richard" moron thinks it was just Fox News...

danimyl

before I started to post I copied the same paragraph. Every single day MSN had it on the front page. It shifted around a bit, left, right, center, top, and bottom. It was even there yesterday.

"Jilted dentist"

I didn't read it the first time closely because I thought it was kinda too strange to be true. Most should have picked up it was a hoax when they read that the supposed victim didn't know until he went home and looked in the mirror??? LOL! If it was true, he would ahve noticed right away, LOL!

What I just read above, it has MSN at number 6 on the list right after Yahoo News, unless they just slipped it in after reading you posts. The sneaky bastages.

Danimyl, your copy/paste skills are lacking; or are you just against the left wing MSNBC? Re-read the 3rd paragraph.

I'm not sure what others are seeing because I see MSN right after Yahoo! News in the article siting the agencies that ran the original story. Was this article edited between when you guys read it and when I read it?

yep!

This "The Story Was a Hoax" hoax is better than the original hoax. As far as entertainment goes...which is what news reporting is.

As far as entertainment goes...which is what news reporting is.

Unfortunately I agree. Well said.

People too lazy to read the entire article should not comment- MSNBC and MSN were mentioned as publishing it too. You are the same people who fall for the Teaparty B.S. Educate yourselves!

kapikahi and others, perhaps MSN was added later after people commented that it was not on the list. I have noticed that sometimes stories get updated after comments have been posted....

Dani - it wasn't on MSNBC - it was under MSNBC's "What's Trending Now", and was only a link on MSNBC. The story never ran on MSNBC - those Trending links are often paid ads to get you to other Web sites (can't blame MSNBC for cashing in on gullibility). Those Trending sites are also aimed at the Twitter and Facebook fanatics, I'm not surprised it went viral with those people.

So it looks like the 50 people who "Liked" Dani's comment were a bit blood thirsty to attack MSNBC - makes you wonder why they come here in the first place, doesn't it.

The comments on this (the original) article do not show up in my Newsvine History log - hence it wasn't an MSNBC article or one of their main contributors.

news imitates art and then impersonates life?

I want to believe lol

Drainbramage you my friend need to get a life.. I wish I had time to patrol all the posts and inject my little brand of soft-spoken hatred. You obviously have no life. Stop neglecting your children and get the hell of the computer..

LMAO @ Fluffy

My only son just graduated from the #1 medical school in the Nation, but if you want to speculate just to fuel your own hatred, be my guest. I did my tour of the work world, jealous bitch.

Let me guess - you are a conservative who just can't resist confronting liberals at what the vast majority would consider a liberal web site... and my little remarks actually hit home with you (in a negative way). So, I'll leave you with a typical neo-con response; if you don't like free speech - go back to the Middle East where you Christian freaks came from. How is that for speculation?

ooooooooooooo.. I THINKS I HIT A SENSITIVE NERVE WITH DB... HA!

DITTO; who had to address whom first? At least I can form a rhetorical argument in reply to your trolling, what was it that really set you off (against me)? No specifics - just had to put me in my place? LMAO. I happen to like my place very much - not being a Republican or a Democrat makes for a very peaceful life.

Is that a picture of you, or are you just attacking the over weight? Make sure you yell in Caps when you reply :>)

OMG! I just checked Fluffy's posts on other topics - I couldn't put her on my Ignore list fast enough. I think I need a shower to wash all of her bitterness out of my eyes... YUK!

You are totally correct. The news media, for the most part, has become inept not only in their reporting but overall journalism, spelling grammar and command of the English language. It's really sad!

Sensationalism is what it's all about, not much better then the tabloids. There are exceptions however.

What ever happened to the days when news editors required reporters to confirm stories with at least two independent sources before publishing something. The internet age and the rush by these news organizations to be the first to publish something has resulted in the news media being completely unreliable. They continually publish stories with incorrect and/or missing information and some that are just outright hoaxes like this one. That, coupled with absolutely atrocious writing and news stories riddled with typos, many sounding like they were written by third graders, has resulted in a general lack of quality in today's news sources. These news organizations need to take a step back and return to their old procedures of verifying stories and having them reviewed by competent editors before they publish them. The damage they have done to their credibility is immeasurable and they need to do something to fix this problem quickly.

JS in SD,

The internet happened. How many bloggers check their sources, much less confirm them?

The Free Press no longer exists. its politically controlled, I learned that one first month on the job.

JS - you have a false, romantic view of old school reporting - that wasnt any more "reliable" back then than it is now.

you know how easy it was - then - to drum up 2 people who said they can confirm the story, whether or not they actually could? and back then, it was a lot harder to track down people to make sure the sources were valid as well.

the internet has simply made it that much faster and easier to refute bunk stories...

but no doubt, today's journalism isnt interested in the truth much more than old school journalism...they always were only about the story that would sell the papers, and you're fooling yourself if you believe any differently.

but you are correct, there is no time OR MONEY for proofreaders and editors anymore.

we get what we pay for unless you want to start paying to read crap articles on MSNBC? didnt think so.

I'm pretty sure that a bunch of field reporters have been laid off due to lack of money. Or downsized for profit growth, whichever you prefer.

I don't know many actual journalists. Some of the ones I've talked to have said that journalistic integrity has been sacrificed to the 24-hour news cycle. Some claim it's been downsized to the AP reporters only, and all news sources originate and rely on them. Personally, I have no idea.

Regarding the quality of news. It's telling that MSNBC publishes a media hoax on front page, but where are their retractions located? Can't find them, not easily, anyway.

That's what this website needs. Up in the links, next to the topics, they should have a "RETRACTION" section. All news media must issue retractions from time to time, whether for misrepresenting research and conclusions from a scientist, misquoting a politician, or outright fraud as in this case. I know NPR, at least on the shows I've heard, does an outstanding job putting their retractions out there front and center, as they should be.

We all make mistakes. Even veteran reporters make mistakes from time to time, being too rushed to double-check a source or verify a law. A lot of it has to do with the editors not knowing enough about the subjects they're editing to actually catch errors. I know science editing has taken a nose dive (though Alan here tends to write incredible articles; I blame the copy editors for the sensationalistic and misleading titles).

I think a lot of it has to do with education. We need kids more interested in science, more willing and able to think critically and judge for themselves. The quality of news, I think, would go up with a more educated and less emotionally vulnerable audience.

Or, you know, just make @!$%# work. Whatever, I'm out.

Hooray for the good ole days of truthful, accurate reporting, days when people knew they could depend on the media for complete in-depth coverage of world events ...

... those halycon days when a radio audience, DESPITE continuous disclaimers as to the fictional nature of its storyline, could convince itself that Martians had indeed landed in New Jersey.

We get what we pay for, and we believe what we want to, whether it has any truth or not. Check out Snopes.com or Politifact.com.

Good point, Greentimer - we tend to forget the errors of the past in comparison to the errors of today. The whole "Golden Age" syndrome.

I won't argue that things were necessarily better in the past. I will argue that reporting has become consolidated (look at the Fox "News" shows, that all have the same writers, the same catch phrases, the same stories, every single day, and similar for CNN). More "news" shows that are just rehashing of other news shows. Occasionally, one gets a break, but it seems they mostly rely on conglomeration websites for their own news, and do little fact-checking of any kind.

People say it's the 24-hour news cycle. Maybe it is. Of course, reporters back in the day didn't have internet, cell phones, email, even land lines. They had to hoof it, and a good story breaking sometimes took a week to cross-check, sometimes even more.

Now, you have these talking heads who make millions because they have a good soundbyte ready (exception for Rachel Maddow who actually seems to fact-check and prepare, unlike pretty much every other news personality in the last 10 years). But these people don't do the reporting, they're a face. A pretty face, a trustworthy face, a good voice, and occasional wittiness will take them far. Meanwhile, no money left in the budget for actual reporters, the ones the newspapers used to hire to beat feet and develop sources. I don't know, maybe I'm completely wrong about all this, but that's the way it seems. They've sacrificed expertise for the internet, and now we're reaping the rewards.

Janstomce. of course, the sad thing is that you are quite accurate about the nature of news casting today vs yesterday.

In a sense, I think democracy is what is happening. Back in the day, one didn't get to report the good stuff until working one's way through obituaries and PTA meetings. By the time one got to file a story on the Titanic or the Scopes Trial or the Linberg kidnapping, a reporter was a journeyman, a person who excelled in his craft, an elitist for whom deference was earned and to whom deference was given.

Today, anybody can jump on the internet to proclaim something and find a ready audience. This undermines local newspapers, starting with small town presses first, as people stop buying day-old print news in favor of free up-to-minute internet reporting. Each day, more small town papers fail, then larger towns, then city papers. It's gotten to the point where its the NYT, the WSJ and the Wash Post. As you say, it has become very consolidated. I think ironically enough, that the consolidation is a result of democratization, and people wanting information cheap and flashy and without discussion.

The internet age and the rush by these news organizations to be the first

The internet happened.

The internet has simply made

Back in the day they didn't have internet,

They've sacrificed expertise for the internet.

One things for sure. The internet has really changed us all.

I see they changed it. I guess we have to edit MSNBC's articles for them. Editors cut into the profit margin.

Not to mention MSN carried the story, too.

Yep. Blame it on Ashton Kutcher!

What? He's the king of the "Punk" and has his own show punk'd. Has to be all his fault!!!

...and all that "Change" talk we got from our current politics-as-usual commander.

"And dat's the tooth!"

Hahahahahahahahaha

First major outlet to report the story was Christina Ng at ABC, on May 30. Nice try, though.

May 30th? When being indignant with a response, it helps to proof-read first.

Saw it on CNN. Picking on Fox for what they all did just diminishes credibility and shows bias. Specifically it is the "Hostile media effect – the tendency to see a media report as being biased due to ones own strong partisan views." You see this all the time from people arguing "liberal media" blah blah blah. It's gotten old and lame. Don't use it.

How does a story of a hoax turn into an attempt to slam one news agency? Your hatred of Republicans skews your thinking.. And your comments.

sure pal,

Point taken regarding correction of errors. Point rejected regarding indignance.

Ironically I saw the story on MSN which is full of liberal drivel, all that is braindead. I know which news agencies you blindly follow.

I read it here and it was on their front page for several days. Then to top it off MSNBC didn't even acknowledge they ran the story in this retraction until they got caught. Shoddy, very shoddy.

You don't use a camera with an f-stop. You use your cell-phone to send it live. If you used a camera, you might miss the screams.

I've always wondered how journalists could stand there taking pictures of horrible events but doing nothing to help. They probably wouldn't even call 911 before posting the story.

I'm also wondering why it took two weeks for anyone to verify the story - after all, it apparently took all of two phone calls to debunk it.

So here goes the name calling, back stabbing and juvenile fighting over the media!!! Pick on each other over who wrote what 1st, republican this democrat that...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....just as the media wants us all to be stirred up and create controversy. Who benefits???????????

Except they didn't admit to it. They pointed the finger at everyone else though.

I thought you said some giant sushi swallowed Taiwan. Hell, ole Rush Rimjob will be lookin' for his wasabi.

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!

This is the best comment in this whole section. Bravo! hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa