Is the media irreparably broken

[Shoeless Joe]

I'm not talking about one particular outlet or even one branch, but has the 24-hour news cycle and social media irreparably broken the media? Every major event creates a new level of mistakes reported as fact only to be proven false information. But then it's too late. People just remember what they heard first because it takes on a cyberspace life of its own.

It's clear that in today's world, getting something out first is far more important that being correct. Will the tide ever turn back to accuracy being more important than speed?

 

[BTExpress]

Will the tide ever turn back to accuracy being more important than speed.

Not until there is major accountability for being wrong.

Just look how fast people on this site try to be the first to post things. And this isn't even their job. Just some ego-driven need to "post news" before someone else.

With zero repercussions beyond a few seconds of shame (if that) when the information is shown to be wrong.

 

[DanOregon]

It's not journalism what we're seeing. Not when every morsel of information is given the same weight without context.

 

[dooley_womack1]

deweydefeatstruman.jpg

Figured I'd get that in first and accurately.

 

[Riptide]

It's not journalism what we're seeing. Not when every morsel of information is given the same weight without context.

It's not journalism.
It's televised ejaculations.

 

[dreunc1542]

It's not journalism what we're seeing. Not when every morsel of information is given the same weight without context.

It's not journalism.
It's televised ejaculations.

It's happened on all forms of media, not just television.

Also, as discussed on other threads - journalists have misreported major pieces of information in the heat of big crises for a long time. Now, though, instead of just the wires and a few TV stations being able to report information as it happens, basically everyone can.

There are definitely issues about coverage of breaking news that need to be addressed, but I also think it's short-sighted to act as if the rush to be first and beat the competition is something new to recent news coverage.

 

[Pilot]

It's not like there's a better option. Have Reddit users finished the gallows they're building for the missing Brown student? Or at they still focused on the world's greatest crowd-sourcing investigation which found two athletes with backpacks and dark skin guilty?

 

[JackReacher]

I'm still not entirely sure what Reddit is.

 

[Here me roar]

Short answer? No.

Sincerely hope that weeks like this will lead to the media remembering that bring accurate is more important then being first. Source facts. Say where they came from. Say if they haven't been independently confirmed. If you really don't know or think it's wrong don't use it. My goodness. Be professional.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Short answer? No.

Sincerely hope that weeks like this will lead to the media remembering that bring accurate is more important then being first. Source facts. Say where they came from. Say if they haven't been independently confirmed. If you really don't know or think it's wrong don't use it. My goodness. Be professional.

Disagree. Would love it to shake out this way, but momentum is such a powerful force, and the dollars too follow the irresponsible.

Watch the New York Post. The most disgraceful week maybe ever for a single journalism entity. And yet the next time they have a "scoop," it will be cited all over the place.

Stewart's bit on CNN was tremendous too. But it's not going to change anything at CNN.

 

[Pilot]

I'm still not entirely sure what Reddit is.

Neither am I, honestly.

I once figured I'd like it because it's kind of a message board and hey, I like message boards, right? But I'm too dumb to navigate it easily, I guess, because I can't ever seem to figure out what's going on. But, at least I didn't accuse multiple innocent people of being terrorists all the while mocking the "traditional media" for being slow and stupid, only to be wrong over and over again.

 

[Lugnuts]

No, but we're in the midst of a giant seismic storm surrounding the way we get information.

Some entity will figure out a new system for organizing and disseminating correct information. That entity will rise from the ashes.

If success is sustained, the formula will be replicated.

 

[JimmyHoward33]

I don't think so. I'm in Boston area and the local coverage has been very good from late last night through right now. No mention of the wrong names, cautious with suspects that were wrong place/wrong time caught on camera, etc.

Locals and everybody else were pretty bad with the misreported arrest/way to the court house bit on Wednesday, but from the MIT shooting forward have been very strong from what I'm watching.

 

[Pilot]

No, but we're in the midst of a giant seismic storm surrounding the way we get information.

Some entity will figure out a new system for organizing and disseminating. That entity will rise from the ashes.

If success is sustained, the formula will be replicated.

That may well be, but I think this week has proven some of the huge shortcomings of crowdsourcing.

 

[JackReacher]

I'm still not entirely sure what Reddit is.

Neither am I, honestly.

I once figured I'd like it because it's kind of a message board and hey, I like message boards, right? But I'm too dumb to navigate it easily, I guess, because I can't ever seem to figure out what's going on. But, at least I didn't accuse multiple innocent people of being terrorists all the while mocking the "traditional media" for being slow and stupid, only to be wrong over and over again.

Ha. Yeah, always nice to have that going for ya.

I think I went to Reddit once, a long time ago, only to be completely confused the very second the page loaded. Seems like an upstanding place, though!!

 

[93Devil]

I imagine one news organization, either existing or a new one, will try to brand itself on accuracy and not conjecture and poor sources.

Will it work? Who knows?

 

[Lugnuts]

No, but we're in the midst of a giant seismic storm surrounding the way we get information.

Some entity will figure out a new system for organizing and disseminating. That entity will rise from the ashes.

If success is sustained, the formula will be replicated.

That may well be, but I think this week has proven some of the huge shortcomings of crowdsourcing.

Word.

 

[reformedhack]

The media? Yes. And it has been for a while.

Journalism? No. There will always be a need for dependable, thoughtful reporting. I suppose there's a chance an organization could establish itself as a fair, measured and accurate source for news and information and prove itself as such time and time again. More likely, it will be individual creators who develop personal followings.

I suspect the not-too-distant future will be a little bit more like -- please excuse the 27-year-old pop culture reference -- the character of Edison Carter from the futuristic TV show, "Max Headroom." Carter was the one-man news bureau that viewers trusted and followed because he uncovered stuff that even his bosses at Network 23 didn't want reported.

Granted, that's a little too sci-fi, but the template probably applies: In an age where trust in corporate-owned media is at all-time lows and falling by the day, the future of pure journalism probably rests with independent journalists -- crusading bloggers? -- who want to uncover news, not just cover whatever the authorities say.

 

[JackReacher]

http://gawker.com/5995058#13663938928203&{"type":"iframeUpdated","height":1528}

"But the real story is not how the news got it wrong—there's been plenty of that since Monday. It's how, mere hours after telling a bull**** story, the news simply told a new story and expunged the previous one from its memory."

 

[Riptide]

It's not journalism what we're seeing. Not when every morsel of information is given the same weight without context.

It's not journalism.
It's televised ejaculations.

It's happened on all forms of media, not just television.

Also, as discussed on other threads - journalists have misreported major pieces of information in the heat of big crises for a long time. Now, though, instead of just the wires and a few TV stations being able to report information as it happens, basically everyone can.

There are definitely issues about coverage of breaking news that need to be addressed, but I also think it's short-sighted to act as if the rush to be first and beat the competition is something new to recent news coverage.

Now, though, on top of the misreporting, everyone feels the need to analyze and speculate on top of the misreported facts, so the blind are leading the blind down countless avenues that end up going nowhere. All that talk and conjecture before stuff is confirmed confuses the issues and sends people off on tangents that aren't true anyway.

The rush to be first, combined with the need to fill air time (and Internet space?) and look important, turns the big breaking stories into giant hairballs, which do not taste anything like real journalism. And, really, is there anything as idiotic and embarrassing as a bunch of clueless TV anchors sitting around speculating about news events they never learned how to report in the first place?