media

media / twitter — No Comments
23
Jan 12

If You Don’t Like the News on Twitter, Wait Five Minutes

Late on Saturday night, the Twittersphere blew up with the news that Joe Paterno had died.

Except he didn’t.

Judging by this hashtag, it appears CBS incorrectly broke the story.

Even though his family confirmed that he did pass away a few hours later, I think it’s still worth mentioning that this speed-over-accuracy media atmosphere we are all a part of is troubling.

It’s troubling because, besides a clever hashtag, there seems to be no repercussions for spreading such an untrue story, leading most to believe that this wasn’t a big deal.

But I think it is a big deal.

Our country’s freedom of the press is something we all take for granted. A morning newspaper on the doorstep has been, for most of us, as American as baseball and Occupy Wall Street. But as social media continues its rapid ascent as our main source of news-gathering, we risk losing maybe our best source of news-gathering.

I’m talking, again, about the newspaper. (Don’t think I didn’t think about calling this post “Why We Need Newspapers, Part 2.”)

Newspapers don’t make mistakes like this. They have the luxury — yes, the luxury — of checking their facts. It’s been a long time since a print newspaper actually “broke” a story, but that’s no longer their place in the world. A successful paper must now focus on analysis. They must write the stories behind the stories that broke the night before.

That’s where they can thrive.

But I fear that the news about Paterno passing away will only serve to put this thought in our heads that newspapers should go the way of the dinosaurs.

If anything, it should make them settle in for a fight to stay relevant.

I wish there was a way to hold those accountable who mislead us to be punished, but, for now, we’ll have to let the Court of Public Opinion levy the punishment.

Our job, for those of us who are active in social media, is not to fan the flames. When we hear something shocking, it’s up to us to check our facts. Read it with a grain of salt.

Because if we don’t, we’re only fanning the flames of inaccuracy. And once we’ve made it clear that we can tolerate mistakes, there’s nothing to hold back the wave of falsity.

/end rant

journalism / media — No Comments
22
Nov 11

There’s No ‘Me’ in Journalism

I am not a journalist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night take a few journalism classes in college.

And if there’s one thing I learned (besides don’t bury the lead) it was that the journalist should never become the story. It ruins credibility and undermines the publication.

Even though we have entered an era where celebrity is within everyone’s reach, I still believe that journalists have to abide by this rule. Otherwise, it can be difficult to view them as impartial observers.

A few days ago, Mashable, a popular site for social media news, fired their editor-in-chief Ben Parr, so Parr took to his own site to write his swan song to his fans, expressing his deep gratitude to Mashable for allowing him to write for their site. Complete with the obligatory Steve Jobs reference, Parr wrote that he will take his talents to a spot that is still to be determined, but he has been inspired beyond belief.

That’s all well and good for Mr. Parr, and I do hope he lands on his feet, but he is a journalist, first and foremost. And to take time to write a piece on the heels of some controversy surrounding the timing of his firing, plants him firmly in the story, not on the outside, as journalistic ethics require. Rather than letting it blow over, he purposely addressed it, knowing full well that it would become a hot topic in the social mediasphere.

What Ben Parr had was a job, and some people lose those jobs, whether it’s because they weren’t the right fit, or they got caught sleeping with the boss’s wife.

But it happens.

Reporters lose and switch jobs all the time, but they don’t announce their departures in grand fashion. One day, their byline shows up under a new banner, and you think to yourself Huh, I didn’t know Andrea Johnson now writes for Daily Cabinetry and you move on. Bringing attention to yourself merely embroils you in the story.

Like I mentioned above, we live in a society where most of us will experience some level of our 15 minutes of fame, whether we like it or not. Some for good reasons. Some for sketchy reasons. It’s how we handle the fame that shows who we are.

As a journalist, your level of fame should be decided by others, while  you sit back and let them judge. To push the needle one way or another is bad form.

Just like the stories you write about others, let us judge for ourselves how to digest the information.

When you try to become the story, you lose credibility.

Image courtesy of spotreporting.

journalism / media — 1 Comment
12
Sep 11

Four Ways 9/11 Changed How We Get Our News

Not only did the tragic events of September 11 change our outlook on the world, it changed how we get the viewpoints that shape our perspectives.

Before the attacks, news was delivered at a slower pace, which reflected our demand for news.  But the rapid-fire coverage of 9/11 brought with it an unexpected shift in how we get our news. Certain tools became necessary to give us our fill of up-to-the-second updates, and these tools were used so often in the days and weeks after, that they never went away.  Now, when you turn on the news or open a newspaper, you’re seeing the artifacts of those tools.

With the 10th anniversary of 9/11 still fresh in our minds, let’s take a look at four ways the attack changed how we get our news.

The News Ticker – Even though it debuted on TV in the 1950′s, the news ticker didn’t gain popularity until the public had a real need to know information as it happened. September 11 was that trigger. In the days following the attacks, those tickers were the perfect way to relay the current homeland security threat. Now you can’t turn on the news (or ESPN) without seeing it. It’s impossible to remember a time when it wasn’t crawling across the bottom of your screen.

Transparency – If a newspaper would have reported in the days leading up to 9/11 that terrorists were going to fly airplanes into buildings, I think most of us would’ve scoffed at that absurd notion and admonished the paper for running the story. But now, airlines detaining passengers and bomb threats make it into print because outlets (especially newspapers) can ill-afford to miss something. Of course, it’s a double-edged sword: there are some who call fear-mongering for posting these stories. I’m not sure there’s a happy medium.

Breaking News Alerts – Obviously, the ultimate breaking news alert was the attacks of September 11. [Editor's note: I watched the "9/11: As It Happened" special on MSNBC two nights ago, and I was amazed at how remarkably composed Matt Lauer & Co. were on The Today Show. Of course, we now have the benefit of hindsight, but there was no freaking out. They were a calming influence on a chaotic day.]

Anyway, I know I’m not the only one who gets a little anxious when The Office is interrupted by a special report. Thanks to Twitter, we usually learn about the breaking news before it breaks on television, but it’s still a bit unnerving when the national news cuts in, especially at an odd time. It seems we’ve been programmed to pay full attention when out-of-the-blue news hits, because we just don’t know. The media knows now what gets our attention.

Crowdsourcing – On a day when information was shared among sources so fast that nobody new what was real and what was fiction, many of the news outlets carrying the story relied on eyewitness interviews from people in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa. to tell them what really happened. At one point during the MSNBC special, there was a report of a car bomb going off at the State Department, but one of their correspondents, who was at the State Department, nixed that rumor. This was the first time I can remember where the news relied on citizens to help report the news.

I’m sure there are more I’m forgetting (and I would love it if you pointed them out in the comments) but these four really stand out as being solid examples of how tactics that were used to report details of this tragedy were adopted for future use.

There’s a saying that says, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” In this case, I think it’s applicable.

media — 2 Comments
04
Aug 11

All Media Should De-Wiki-Fy

Did you know there is an editor at WIRED Magazine who is responsible for making sure reporters do not use Wikipedia as a source?

It’s true. I read it on Gizmodo.com.

It seems to me this is something WIRED (and other publications that have this policy in place) should tout. I’m not saying it should place itself in the masthead — WIRED Magazine: Wiki-what? — but, at the very least, maybe a letter from that editor?

As the public’s trust in the media plummets, what with the recent phone hacking scandal and a tendency to post incorrect scoops to stay in lockstep with the news cycle, media should strive to reassure the public that they are professionals, not the equivalent of a college student using Wikipedia to round out their list of sources for a paper on Scotland Yard.

Letting us know that they don’t use a free encyclopedia on the Web that anyone can edit is a good start.

media — 2 Comments
07
Jul 11

The Only Thing We Have to Fear is Nancy Grace Itself

If there’s one thing we can take away from the Casey Anthony trial, it’s this: The media are no longer impartial observers.

Nancy Grace, a woman who bills herself as a member of the media, told her viewers two nights ago the following, after the verdict was delivered: “Somewhere out there tonight, the devil is dancing.”

Those are pretty damning words. If I didn’t know better, I’d say she was insinuating that Casey Anthony is guilty, even though a court of law found her to be innocent.

Whether you believe her, or not, is not the issue. The fact that she has a forum to spout her rhetoric is the issue.

Her story is like a lot of the talking heads who masquerade as journalists on the 24/7 news outlets.

According to Wikipedia, she went straight from the prosecutors office in Fulton County, Ga., to Court TV, skipping that whole “journalism” thing.

She made a name for herself with a blunt interview style that fits her agenda, and doesn’t allow her interview subjects a chance to speak for themselves, oftentimes interrupting them if their answers are silly, or don’t make sense.

Because of her wild popularity, she holds influence over a large audience; an audience that is, in all likelihood, swayed by what she says. It’s not hard to imagine a future case where her pre-trial rants influence an outcome. So for her to sit on her set and proclaim Anthony to be guilty — a direct counter to the actual verdict — is irresponsible, at best.

But she thinks she’s doing it under the guise of journalism.

Please.

She has about as much journalism experience as my three-year-old daughter.

In a time when newspapers continue to shutter their operations and lay off reporters who are trained to report the news, we are fed a steady diet of ex-lawyers and ex-judges who think that just because they worked in the field, they can freely give their opinions.

From a trustworthiness standpoint, this is a dangerous path we’re headed down, and I fear it’s only going to get worse.

← Older Entries