Is the media irreparably broken

[Lugnuts]

Put me in the camp of CNN won't recover from this one for awhile.

CNN will be the running punch line on a national joke for quite sometime.

 

[zagoshe]

Put me in the camp of CNN won't recover from this one for awhile.

CNN will be the running punch line on a national joke for quite sometime.

You mean it already isn't that?

 

[da man]

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.

The part in bold is the key issue here. The race to be first on a story hasn't changed. What has is that when a reporter gets a tip or a lead, instead of having time to check it out before deadline or air time, he or she makes it public immediately simply because there is now a way to do so.

And that is the danger of Twitter, etc. Instead of being encouraged to check facts, reporters are encouraged to post information first and check it out later. And much of that "information" turns out to be completely wrong.

 

[LongTimeListener]

And the ownership of the information has changed too. Used to be when you got scooped, you'd go through your own process of at least confirming it to your satisfaction. Now you slap the word "Report:" in front of something and run with it. And if it's wrong, the news outlet says "hey, don't blame us, it was the other guys that got it wrong and we just told you what they were saying."

 

[Shoeless Joe]

I don't necessarily blame the news media. It is caught up in a supply/demand **** storm created by the public. Everyone has to know everything NOW! even when it's not smart to put it out there. Today there are still reports that say the father of the kid killed ran the race. This morning I kept hearing that black hat was either 20 or 26 and the brothers had been in the country "a year" and "a decade" depending on who you read. There was so much wrong with the reporting of Newtown it would clog up the internet to rehash.

Yes, there have always been the "Dewey Defeats Truman" items in the news media. My concern is there are now more of those than their are facts within the first 24 hours of breaking news.

 

[Riptide]

And the ownership of the information has changed too. Used to be when you got scooped, you'd go through your own process of at least confirming it to your satisfaction. Now you slap the word "Report:" in front of something and run with it. And if it's wrong, the news outlet says "hey, don't blame us, it was the other guys that got it wrong and we just told you what they were saying."

I've heard senior reporters and senior editors cop to this. As if it's a free pass.

 

[Alma]

Anonymous sources have done greater damage over the years. Far more. Really.

I read an entire piece (on an Internet site) where the journalist wrote "I've been told" or "I've heard" about four times. The source is his ear.

 

[Boom_70]

Put me in the camp of CNN won't recover from this one for awhile.

CNN will be the running punch line on a national joke for quite sometime.

Is Anderson Cooper still in Waco? CNN has had a tough week.

 

[Alma]

Put me in the camp of CNN won't recover from this one for awhile.

CNN will be the running punch line on a national joke for quite sometime.

Clowns.

Part of the problem is that CNN relies on its primetime showponies (King, Burnett, Cooper) to anchor this stuff, and they've either lost the scent for it or never spent enough time developing it. FNC, for its copious flaws that CNN could only dream to achieve, doesn't pretend that Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly can do four hours midday.

 

[Boom_70]

Put me in the camp of CNN won't recover from this one for awhile.

CNN will be the running punch line on a national joke for quite sometime.

Clowns.

Part of the problem is that CNN relies on its primetime showponies (King, Burnett, Cooper) to anchor this stuff, and they've either lost the scent for it or never spent enough time developing it. FNC, for its copious flaws that CNN could only dream to achieve, doesn't pretend that Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly can do four hours midday.

And today Cooper found himself in the wrong part of the country. The news cycle moved back to Boston and he was in Waco with Sanja and the gang.

 

[Riptide]

CNN On An Empty Boston: "It's As Though A Bomb Had Dropped."

Oh? Hell of a metaphor, Susan Candiotti.

http://deadsp.in/17MeXJX

 

[Jake_Taylor]

Aaron Sorkin is crafting a thoughtful thank you card for to send to the cable channels for providing him with another three seasons worth of material for The Newsroom.


But as Michael Gee pointed out in another thread, the local outlets have done a good job. I'll admit, I stayed up until 4:30 am following all this last night and I was getting frustrated there wasn't something new on Boston.com every time I clicked refresh, but I woke up to find out I'd been getting the best info there.

 

[Boom_70]

Aaron Sorkin is crafting a thoughtful thank you card for to send to the cable channels for providing him with another three seasons worth of material for The Newsroom.


But as Michael Gee pointed out in another thread, the local outlets have done a good job. I'll admit, I stayed up until 4:30 am following all this last night and I was getting frustrated there wasn't something new on Boston.com every time I clicked refresh, but I woke up to find out I'd been getting the best info there.

Lorne Michaels sends his regards as well.

 

[DanOregon]

Put me in the camp of CNN won't recover from this one for awhile.

CNN will be the running punch line on a national joke for quite sometime.

Clowns.

Part of the problem is that CNN relies on its primetime showponies (King, Burnett, Cooper) to anchor this stuff, and they've either lost the scent for it or never spent enough time developing it. FNC, for its copious flaws that CNN could only dream to achieve, doesn't pretend that Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly can do four hours midday.

Used to be when you saw Big Time Anchor on the scene it meant something. Odd thing is though, I'd rather just have someone who has been following a story exclusively giving me the info. I see Wolf Blitzer et. al. in front of a camera and I'd rather just see the person feeding him the info.
Funny seeing Matt Lauer in West, Texas on Today. You get the impression that if it wasn't Matt Lauer there, they wouldn't have broken to Texas at all.

 

[Boom_70]

There has to be 200 police vehicles there and more arriving by the second.

 

[Versatile]

Instant coverage is good. Yes, the facts are wrong more quickly. They also are corrected more quickly.

I'll duck out now.

 

[armageddon]

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.

The part in bold is the key issue here. The race to be first on a story hasn't changed. What has is that when a reporter gets a tip or a lead, instead of having time to check it out before deadline or air time, he or she makes it public immediately simply because there is now a way to do so.

And that is the danger of Twitter, etc. Instead of being encouraged to check facts, reporters are encouraged to post information first and check it out later. And much of that "information" turns out to be completely wrong.

Was working on a story recently, to confirm something reported elsewhere. Waiting to hear back from several calls/emails/texts and was writing while waiting.

Editor calls and wants an update. I explain situation. Editor didn't want to hear it. Response: "Look, we have to post something now."

Didn't care that I didn't have it confirmed at that point. Might have been the most frustrating day in my career.

 

[Shoeless Joe]

Instant coverage is good. Yes, the facts are wrong more quickly. They also are corrected more quickly.

I'll duck out now.

The problem is those corrections go widely unnoticed and the misinformation goes down as the truth. At Newtown it was first reported the killer used an assault rifle. Then, oh wait, the assault rifle was actually left in the car. Now we've got this giant mess going on nationally. At Boston, it was reported that Martin had run out to hug his dad as he crossed the finish line, but later we find out that isn't true. Still, you've got tens of thousands of people repeating that story and organizing runs for his family.

In today's viral word, news agencies get it wrong from social media, go with it, then it goes out even more wide spread on social media. The whole deal is like an oil well on fire. It just keeps getting fueled by itself.

 

[Versatile]

Newspapers bury corrections on the bottom of Page 2.

I would put a whole lot of money on there being fewer errors in the Boston Globe this morning than on April 20, 1950, when fact checking was much more difficult. The shift now is that accountability is so much higher. You're discussing errors you never would have known about with social media.

 

[BTExpress]

Interesting thought.

But then, there are 323,000 results for a "Brett Farve" search on Google. Sure is easy, though.

I doubt a 1950 fact check (Almanac, Encyclopedia, whatever) would turn up an incorrect spelling of a famous person's name.