Editors often over simplify a story into a catchy and succinct headline, but having the text on our screen right below it invites us to examine if the body supports the head. Tweeting and retreating these headlines is something else altogether. We know that the more we read/hear/see something, the more credibility our mind attaches to it. The repetition of simplistic headlines detached from their stories can enhance the plausibility of questionable conclusions.

Update 2010.11.22:
A recent story appearing on many mainstream tech sites reports on a Dutch study that allegedly proves Wi-Fi signals harm trees, but there appears to be reasonable doubt as to its validity. That hasn't stopped endless tweets and retweets, even in the Green ICT community where we should be solidly evidence-based.

Update 2010.03.01:
Google and e-Bay are two of Bloom Energy's trial users of its Bloom Energy Server (Bloom Box). Many tweeters and bloggers implied or outright stated that the units were being used to power customer-facing data centers. Neither the links they provided nor our research supports that interpretation. Read the whole story.

Update 2010.01.08:
In Greenpeace's latest publication of its periodic Guide to Greener Electronics rankings, Apple was best within the toxic chemicals criteria, but four other companies scored better overall. One publication, AppleInsider, misinterpreted the results and declared in a headline that "Greenpeace ranks Apple as greenest electronics maker". This was retweeted and reposted 2000+ times within first 24 hours of publication and is now accepted as an article of faith by many. Read Vertatique's analysis of what the Greenpeace rankings really say about Apple.

I recently examined the eWeek Europe headline "Green Experts Pour Cold Water on Sweating IT Assets". Turns out the "experts" appeared to have an agenda and the "cold water" lacked substance. Even the article's writer led off with a caution. Yet this did not stop many in the Green ICT space from uncritically tweeting the headline.

A similar case is the ZDNet post "Which is Greener: Paper or Digital? The Answer May Surprise You" The implication is that I was going to be surprised to find the answer is 'paper', but the article offered no hard evidence. It was largely an interview that consisted of two themes: digital has its sustainability issues and paper/print is unfairly maligned. Anyone who follows Vertatique knows I'll readily agree with the first theme; I'll take a pass on the second. But do either the author or the interviewee actually have evidence we'd be better off if all the information produced and delivered electronically was printed on paper and delivered via physical transport? If they have some credible data showing that paper/print is greener in carbon footprint, energy consumption, and/or pollution, it would have strengthened their case to share it. To those that only remember "The Answer May Surprise You", I'll say "Probably not." (More on this author and topic).

Let's all make an effort to read and think about the story before we tweet the headline.