Rushing to be wrong

[BillyT]

So CBS news blew it tonight and declared Joe Paterno dead, only to retract it.

The initial report did make some newspaper sites, plus UPI. I do not know about AP

Apparently CBS picked it up from a site called "Onward State."

http://onwardstate.com/2012/01/21/a-letter-from-the-managing-editor-of-onward-state/

 

[bpoindexter]

The day and age we live in. Eff up, just retract it and move on. No accountability whatsoever.

 

[dixiehack]

Wait, somebody still looks at UPI?

 

[Stitch]

If it's not on Deadspin, it's not news.

 

[Versatile]

If it's not on Deadspin, it's not news.

http://deadspin.com/5878184/reports-joe-paterno-has-died-still-alive-at-85-[update]

 

[dooley_womack1]

I liked darwin better when he was americanidiot

 

[LongTimeListener]

He's just sending up some flares now to see if the coast is clear to re-air the laundry.

 

[slappy4428]

I liked darwin better when he was americanidiot

How much better?

 

[dooley_womack1]

A smidge.

 

[HejiraHenry]

This is the paid-fansite-posts-new-coaching-hire flub writ very large.

We have one advantage in this line of work, and that's our credibility. You protect it, in part, by not getting hung out with a wrong story.

And you do that by doing your own reporting.

The CBS site has some work to do to crawl back from this.

 

[trifectarich]

How many pink slips to come from this?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

How many pink slips to come from this?

One.

From the kid who already resigned.

CBS ain't firing anybody. They'll just want everyone to forget about it.

 

[spurtswriter]

Get it first. You can always verify its accuracy later, but get it first.

 

[writingump]

This is what I hate about journalism these days. It's more important to be first than right, in the mind of some editors. And those editors will NEVER take responsibility when one of their writers, eager to adhere to their admonitions, rushes to be first instead of right and gets something wrong.

 

[PaperDoll]

Re: media response to Paterno's death

Jason Whitlock is one of the journalists who Tweeted support to Devon Edwards, the Onward State ME who resigned.

http://jimromenesko.com/2012/01/22/editor-gets-support-after-resigning-over-incorrect-paterno-report/

Meanwhile, in the middle of last night's drama, Poynter tried to track the (bad) sourcing across the interwebs. It all goes back to unnamed sources and nonexistent verification, the bedrock of reporting. By the way, AP patted itself on the back for not running with the (bad) initial report.

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/160270/how-false-reports-of-joe-paternos-death-were-spread-and-debunked/

 

[Versatile]

If you don't have a reporter involved in the coverage, you don't have enough of a stake to warrant believing a student publication on a matter like this. AP is mostly very cautious, and any professional enterprise that doesn't care about a big story enough to have its own reporter on the story can wait for AP.

If AP had something like this wrong, you can guarantee heads would roll.

 

[WriteThinking]

I also posted this on the RIP thread but think it might be better here:

I haven't read everything out there on this yet, but, given Onward State's explanation of what happened in its apparently inaccurate report that Paterno had died, what other corroboration that he hadn't died was there at the time besides that of Paterno's sons?

Given what's been going on with Paterno, Penn State and the Sandusky matter lately, how could Paterno's sons necessarily be trusted to have been telling the truth or giving out the most accurate information regarding their father's health and/or death?

This chain of events is just an illustration of the media world in action today. The accuracy -- because it seems Onward State's report actually was not far off, if it was off at all -- is directly tied to the speed-of-light changeability of things and quite simply cannot be kept up with with any degree of lasting reliability.

To say that something wasn't true an hour ago, or minutes ago, with hand-wringing to the extent that people are asked to resign, but now it is true and we're not sure whether we actually needed to have taken things that far...how much does it really matter? That is the question that journalism has to grapple with because credibility used to be something to be built up over time.

But that's the problem now. It's not that someone or an organization intrinsically may not have any credibilty, it is that time (and media effort to keep up) is moving so fast as to be practically non-existent.

It is making it so that "credibility" as we know it and think of it and wring our hands about it is almost irrelevant.

 

[Second Thoughts]

This is what I hate about journalism these days. It's more important to be first than right, in the mind of some editors. And those editors will NEVER take responsibility when one of their writers, eager to adhere to their admonitions, rushes to be first instead of right and gets something wrong.

True. And what bothers me the most (I think) is I'm already seeing the "well, 24 hr news cycle rushed to be first and gets it wrong. Sorry. We'll be more careful. Media needs to be more responsible. blah blah"

Because the next time, and there will be a next time, they'll do it all over again. No one learns. No one corrects. It's be first. Not be accurate. As a professional journalist, it disturbs me the harm that does to the profession as a whole.

 

[Versatile]

I also posted this on the RIP thread but think it might be better here:

I haven't read everything out there on this yet, but, given Onward State's explanation of what happened in its apparently inaccurate report that Paterno had died, what other corroboration that he hadn't died was there at the time besides that of Paterno's sons?

Given what's been going on with Paterno, Penn State and the Sandusky matter lately, how could Paterno's sons necessarily be trusted to have been telling the truth or giving out the most accurate information regarding their father's health and/or death?

This chain of events is just an illustration of the media world in action today. The accuracy -- because it seems Onward State's report actually was not far off, if it was off at all -- is directly tied to the speed-of-light changeability of things and quite simply cannot be kept up with with any degree of lasting reliability.

To say that something wasn't true an hour ago, or minutes ago, with hand-wringing to the extent that people are asked to resign, but now it is true and we're not sure whether we actually needed to have taken things that far...how much does it really matter? That is the question that journalism has to grapple with because credibility used to be something to be built up over time.

But that's the problem now. It's not that someone or an organization intrinsically may not have any credibilty, it is that time (and media effort to keep up) is moving so fast as to be practically non-existent.

It is making it so that "credibility" as we know it and think of it and wring our hands about it is almost irrelevant.

I have a much greater issue with the credibility issue for CBS than for Onward State. There are bad sources. We've all had them. Most reporters have probably gone forward with a bad source. And sure, you'd hope that they did a more comprehensive job in checking. But it happens.

CBS took the report of a student-run blog at face value and published based on that single, completely unconfirmed report. There is a credibility issue in that case.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

I also posted this on the RIP thread but think it might be better here:

I haven't read everything out there on this yet, but, given Onward State's explanation of what happened in its apparently inaccurate report that Paterno had died, what other corroboration that he hadn't died was there at the time besides that of Paterno's sons?

Given what's been going on with Paterno, Penn State and the Sandusky matter lately, how could Paterno's sons necessarily be trusted to have been telling the truth or giving out the most accurate information regarding their father's health and/or death?

This chain of events is just an illustration of the media world in action today. The accuracy -- because it seems Onward State's report actually was not far off, if it was off at all -- is directly tied to the speed-of-light changeability of things and quite simply cannot be kept up with with any degree of lasting reliability.

To say that something wasn't true an hour ago, or minutes ago, with hand-wringing to the extent that people are asked to resign, but now it is true and we're not sure whether we actually needed to have taken things that far...how much does it really matter? That is the question that journalism has to grapple with because credibility used to be something to be built up over time.

But that's the problem now. It's not that someone or an organization intrinsically may not have any credibilty, it is that time (and media effort to keep up) is moving so fast as to be practically non-existent.

It is making it so that "credibility" as we know it and think of it and wring our hands about it is almost irrelevant.

Why would you doubt Paterno's sons?
I don't recall anything they have said, or tweeted that could be construed as anything close to a lie?

And given the fact they have been ones speaking out on their dad's behalf, is there a choice?