Are you calling me a liar?

The digital recorder is mightier than the sword

It's a tough job news journalism. You're competing against rival companies and always trying to get ahead of the game. On daily news for a website it's even more frantic.

So when the head of UK and Ireland operations for a big anti-virus firm tells you there's a new mobile phone virus scamming people for $5 a time, that's pretty big news. So far these viruses have just been proof-of-concept, which is a shortcut for saying they spread themselves around to prove they can but don't really do any damage or cost users any money.

So in the first meeting I had at the InfoSec trade show on Wednesday I landed a big scoop. Back to the press room to write it up and email it in.

The only problem is the alleged security expert can't remember the name of the new virus he read the email alert about. Not to worry, the guys back at the office will fill in the missing details, unless we're truly first up with the story in which case we'll do a follow-up.

The following day we get a call from the PR for the company saying can we change our story to make it clear it's not a virus, it's a Trojan, as there's a subtle difference. Being out of the office at the trade show again and in all the rush to get more news on the site this doesn't happen.

But it's with much more annoyance that the company post on its official blog - the place I and other journalists often look to pick up new alerts and interesting trends - that we've got the story wrong.

Following our 'scoop' lots of other people have been in touch with F-Secure to ask what the new virus is. Looking at out story, F-Secure's Jarno Niemela decided there'd been a mix up.

"Apparently the reporter misunderstood a quite harmless Java Trojan as a dangerous Bluetooth worm that is spreading in the wild. It seems that the reporter got mixed up with Redbrowser and Commwarrior."

Really Jarno? How did you come to that conclusion? Did you speak to Richard Hales, F-Secure's country manager for UK and Ireland, who I got the quotes from? After all it would be a PR disaster if you blamed it on us and it turned out the guy in charge of two big territories didn't know what he was talking about.

Alternatively, did you get back in touch with us to check the quotes? Or did you just print that we'd got it wrong without checking any sources? And you're accusing us of poor journalism.

In the initial confusion, we change the original story to say it was a Trojan not a virus, as that seems to be the problem. Unfortunately, F-Secure takes that as proof that we did get it wrong and says as much in an update on its blog.

For the first time in my life I realised what's it's like when someone you've written about doesn't like what you've said or the way you've portrayed them. We even discussed getting in touch with the company lawyers, who might find it interesting to be on the other side of the fence for a change.

After all, I make my living as a journalist and when someone says I got the story wrong and it's my fault, they are threating my professional credentials and putting my job in jeopardy. I've only been at Vnunet.com for six weeks and the company can wave goodbye to you for any reason during the three month trial period. No news site wants a liability on its hands - the market's too cutthroat for that.

So how do I prove that I haven't fucked up? (And here's where I laughed my ass off after checking my source). I've got the guy on tape saying everything I quoted him saying! He even calls the new threat a virus! He never even says it's a trojan.

So here comes a piece of the most satisfying journalism it has ever been my pleasure to write.

Following some major backtracking from F-Secure and an apology from the man in question, what does the company's blog say now?

"Edited to add: This blog entry was rewritten on Friday the 28th. The original version referred to an article on VNUNet and made it sound like a journalist at VNU would have gotten details wrong in an article - when in reality our country manager had provided incorrect information. Sorry for the hassle."