Wikipedia:Otto Middleton (or why newspapers are dubious sources)

'''What's the point of this? (Well, read the article first.)''' This is an illustration of the old adage "don't believe everything you read in the papers" – not even in so-called quality papers. Moreover, it shows the danger of Wikipedia's tendency to collate media stories, and assume that multiple attestation of the same story gives "reliable sourcing". It does not. Especially in the cases of breaking news events and celebrity interest stories, newspapers (even quality ones) feed on each other and lazy journalists repeat stories with the caveat "it is reported" without checking veracity. Here it looks like one anonymous individual fed one gullible journalist a line, an official "no comment" policy was foolishly taken as an admission, and no fact checking was done. The story was then repeated multiple times, and even embellished, before anyone checked anything. If even one person with a passing knowledge of Middleton had been asked for comment, her non-ownership of a dog would have been quickly discovered. The point? Journalists write stories on subjects they know nothing about – but we then treat them as authoritative sources. Be very careful.

Otto Middleton is supposedly a black cocker spaniel who according to widespread media reports is owned by Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge.

Life
Otto and his sister Ella were born into a litter of eight puppies, bred by Christian Hepburne Scott, a breeder and "sort of monthly nurse" to the dogs. The names of the other siblings are unknown.

According to Royal dogwatching experts, Otto became the then Kate Middleton's dog, and his sister Ella also came into the possession of the Middleton family.

Media reports indicated that Otto was originally given to Catherine as a Christmas present in 2007. According to a friend, at the same time Middleton gave her then boyfriend, Prince William of Wales, a black Labrador puppy to replace his elderly gun dog, Widgeon, who had been given to him by the late Diana, Princess of Wales. Middleton's gift to the Prince allowed him and his dog to accompany her and Otto on walks.

Allegations
On 7 March 2010, the Daily Mail reported that Otto had been in the kennel for accidentally eating an antique pearl earring that Prince William, Duke of Cambridge had given his girlfriend for her 28th birthday. Katie Nicholl, the Daily Mail's royal correspondent, commented:
 * "When Prince William bought Kate Middleton a pair of pearl earrings for her 28th birthday, he carefully tracked down the finest and most expensive pair he could find. But now he may be wishing he had not gone to so much trouble – after the precious antiques were eaten by Kate's dog. Otto, her beloved black cocker spaniel, chewed up the jewellery so badly that they were rendered unwearable – much to her consternation."

The same day, The Daily Telegraph reported that Middleton, who had "adored" the jewellery, had flown into a panic on discovering tooth marks on a tube of hand cream by her bedside. The paper quoted a friend who testified:
 * "It seems that Otto had got into her room and eaten the earrings. He was sitting on the end of the bed looking pleased with himself and licking his paws. Kate was really upset and embarrassed. But when she told William he burst out laughing and said she would have to wait for them to come out the other end."

The newspaper also reported that Middleton subsequently monitored Otto's faeces, waiting for the earrings to emerge. The Huffington Post suggested she had to "search through dog poop". The New York Daily News stated that Middleton was also forced to take Otto for several walks a day, in the hope of recovering them. (It was elsewhere suggested that a royal aide may have been tasked with searching through the dog's excrement. ) In any case, when the earrings eventually emerged unwearable, as the Daily Mail''s source testified, "William told her not to worry and said he would buy her another pair", adding, ""He said the main thing was that Otto was okay ... He adores the dog, who's very sweet."

Later reports elsewhere indicated that the earrings were valued at $28,000, and the Prince found them through a private dealer he'd personally tracked down.

OK, so far everything here is attributed to "multiple reliable, published sources". And isn't "verifiability" one of Wikipedia's core content policies ...? But...

Refutation
On March 8, Richard Palmer, Royal correspondent for the Daily Express, tweeted:
 * "Kate Middleton doesn't have a dog apparently so is puzzled by claims it ate a pearl earring from Prince William." 

The same day, the blog Tabloid Watch claimed that Clarence House had denied the story to them, although other sources suggested that Royal spokesmen refused to be drawn stating:
 * "Kate Middleton is a private individual. We don't comment on private individuals".

On March 9, the Daily Telegraph, changing their line from the previous day, proclaimed Otto innocent, having a "cast-iron alibi". Christian Hepburne Scott informed the newspaper that Otto actually lived in Yorkshire, having not been given by her to Kate Middleton, but rather to a friend of her brother. According to the breeder, Ella had been the dog given to the Middleton family, and there was no reason to suspect Ella of having eaten any earrings. Middleton's spokesman Gerrard Tyrell, of lawyers Harbottle & Lewis, also refuted the story, joking, "We have been searching in vain for the dog."

The Daily Mail later removed the story from their website, stating:
 * "We put the story to the Clarence House press office before publication and they didn’t give us any indication it was untrue. We have since been told there were inaccuracies in the story and as a courtesy we have removed it from our website."

The Guardian criticised Clarence House for its refusal to deny the initial story, saying, they "could have easily nipped the story in the bud by steering the paper away from publishing. Would it have killed CH to be a teensy bit helpful on this one?"

However, even after the Telegraph's exposé, newspapers were still reporting the initial story as true. On March 10, Ann Widdecombe writing in the Daily Express stated that the Prince was not upset by consumption of his gift but "found the whole episode hilarious".

A year later (April 25 2011), web journalists were still citing the story of Otto and the earrings as factual. On 12 May 2011, the British public relations website PR fire, stated that on the eve of Kate Middleton's wedding, "pet experts believe her black Cocker Spaniel, Otto, will also be getting the jitters as he picks up on his mistress's own nerve".

Lupo (a follow up)
A story, published in the Telegraph in February 2012, stated that the Duchess of Cambridge had recently received a Cocker Spaniel puppy. A later story indicated that the dog was called Lupo, and was bred from Ella, the dog belonging to the Duchess's parents. The article also referred to the earlier dog story, stating "one of Ella's brothers, Otto, was said to have eaten a pair of earrings belonging to the Duchess which were bought by Prince William before they were engaged" - but gave no indication that the story was, in fact, false.

Moral of the story With the increasing competition for readers, especially on the Internet with the demand for updates in real time, so-called quality "reliable" news sources can become dubious. As The New York Times reported in December 2013 in a piece titled "If a Story Is Viral, Truth May Be Taking a Beating":
 * In the stepped-up competition for readers, digital news sites are increasingly blurring the line between fact and fiction, and saying that it is all part of doing business in the rough-and-tumble world of online journalism ... editors at these sites acknowledge frankly that there are trade-offs in balancing authenticity with the need to act quickly in a hyperconnected age.

In other words, news sources today tend to sacrifice accuracy for the need to publish quickly, especially if a news story is becoming viral. They thus feed on each other, passing the same content around, hoping you see the story on their site first. Just because a story may be verified from "multiple reliable sources" does not necessarily mean it is accurate.