top of page

Who needs facts when a shrieking headline does the job?

This week, a well-known publication ran an exam tech story, about insecure software being used. You might know that Adobe doesn't support Flash anymore. Exam software still using Flash is a big story, right? But it's not a story.


We live in a scaremongering, clickbait world. Many people prefer an unfounded 'gotcha', not the facts and informed opinions. The 'story' is flimsy and not fact-based.


So, what happened? A quick social media search alludes to a tip-off, via an IT woodshedder. Probably looking for a smoking gun, a good yarn for the (virtual) pub, or just with an axe to grind.


The exam owner, dealing with school-level exams, has used the supplier for 16 years. Let's assume the relationship is deep and trusting at this point. They probably know what's on the supplier's development roadmap.


The main story omission is that the supplier uses an Adobe-approved partner, which is part of Samsung, not a sole trader in their spare room. It supports exam owners actively transitioning to HTML exam delivery. Nice and safe with a straight bat, as we say in England.


So, will the publication remove the story? Not while it harvests monetisable clicks!

Dopey sources and shoddy stories are what our community has to navigate. Suppliers want to present a rebuttal and get on the front foot - present the facts and defend their corner. But they lack professional PR and comms, that can easily swat misleading and time-consuming tittletattle away.


The Big Tech Question is not whether exam tech suppliers are up to the challenge. It's dealing with lazy, amateur commentators who prefer shrieking headlines, to fact checking and informed debate.

Comentários


Os comentários foram desativados.
bottom of page