I have a saying: If you aren’t right, you aren’t first.
Still, the job of journalism can be incredibly difficult, particularly during confusing breaking news situations.
Back in the day when it was just print, it was a little easier. You had a little time, sometimes a full day, to get the story right, to gather the details and the analysis and create a great little package for readers. It was a thrill to try to beat the other paper, or to groan when you pulled up and saw a TV truck sitting on the scene of what you thought might be an exclusive.
But media has changed and so has the media consumer.
The Boston bombing was a pretty fair example. CNN caught quite a bit of heat over their coverage and dissemination of information.
The good thing is the various errors in the news reporting, from all different sources, has spurred some conversations about such errors. I think this is a positive as we should always be discussing how to do our jobs better and how to get the information out quickly and correctly.
I think the bombing illustrates how hard obtaining that news can be. At one point a very reliable source – the Boston police – said a suspect was in the hospital. A few minutes later, the FBI said that’s not the case.
Even during the press conference, the police commissioner said there was an explosion and fire at the JFK Library and that they were being treated as connected. However, it was an accidental fire and had nothing to do with the bombing.
Clearly official sources – sources who should know – sometimes get it wrong too. I think it shows how confusing some breaking news scenarios can be to everyone involved.
In my view, Humphrey Bogart’s Deadline USA is one of the best newspaper movies ever made. Bogart spends one day trying to save a newspaper, save a marriage, and root out government corruption and gangsters. Good stuff, but would today’s “Deadline USA” involve a reporter spending about 2 minutes trying to get a story and then reporting it wrong on Twitter?
Here’s the problem. Media, television in particular, can’t go on the air and say, “we don’t know anything, so we’re going back to our regular programming until we do.” The second they do that, you will change the channel, and the ratings game – which is key to advertising – is lost.
The American people have an insatiable appetite for news, even when there’s nothing new to report. A friend mentioned she stayed up all night watching the bombing coverage, though is was pretty much just rehashing what had been reported all day long.
Even in newspapers, and especially in the digital world, there is a fear of the “I saw it first elsewhere.” Here at the DNJ, we try our best to adhere to the adage, “If you aren’t right, then you aren’t first.”
People will tell me they would rather have accurate information than to have it quickly, but that’s not been the case, because they will turn around and say we aren’t doing our jobs when they see it first – even if its wrong – elsewhere.
It is a conundrum. Do we have to be first? Is fast good enough? How much info is enough to post in the race to be first? How long will readers be patient?