Originally Posted By ecdc >>about how NBC was doing such a good job with coverage...<< Strawman. I only said they weren't speculating.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Even if that were true, William, a). a half dozen instances over a year isn't horrendous (Fox probably commits that many in a good week), and b). it wouldn't have anything to do with how they were handling this particular story today. No need to take offense because ecdc saw two sources and said that both were holding off on speculation. Which is all he said.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 ecdc you are an idiot. I made a comment and you immediately attacked me for it... At no times did I attack anything you said, get a friggin life...
Originally Posted By ecdc I made a very simple point that a couple of outlets were not speculating. Rather than let that go, you chose to make a stupid comment because you apparently refuse to believe that any news media could possibly be responsible. If you don't want me to respond, don't say something stupid.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Yes, because it's so creative and thoughtful to criticize the media. Maybe, just maybe, some of them are being responsible.<< Link please? ;-)
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Link please? ;-)<< <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/" target="_blank">http://www.breitbart.com/</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip CBS has now corrected itself, say it may have been a fire in the mechanical room at the JFK library.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>CBS has now corrected itself, say it may have been a fire in the mechanical room at the JFK library.<< headdesk headdesk headdesk
Originally Posted By ecdc >>headdesk headdesk headdesk<< Yes, those irresponsible monsters, reporting something that was stated by Boston PD spokesman and Governor Patrick in a press conference.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 CNN.com puts it this way: "Boston police now appear to be backing away from their commissioner's earlier statement that a third incident – at the JFK Library 5 miles from the finish line - might have been related to the Boston Marathon blasts." So if the police commish said it, I don't have a problem with the media reporting what he said. If there's a fault, it would be with him speaking prematurely. But there must be pressure there too; we all seem to need our news instantly these days. Everyone should just take a step back - if that's even possible any more.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Yes, those irresponsible monsters, reporting something that was stated by Boston PD spokesman and Governor Patrick in a press conference.<< It's report-first verify-later journalism. Ready-fire-aim. It sucks, and we shouldn't have to put up with it. Every incorrect report they put out, no matter how quickly they retract it, becomes fodder for the conspiracy nuts later.
Originally Posted By ecdc Look, I'm all for a philosophical discussion about the role of news media, timelines for providing information, etc. I imagine most of us feel the same way...there's a happy medium between instant breaking news and having to wait until we see a newsreel at a movie before we learn anything. But this is the environment we have. There are plenty (PLENTY!) of irresponsible "journalists" who speculate and feed bad information. But in that environment of on-demand news, there are some journalists who do their best and try and report the information as it comes in as responsibly as they can. These people report the news. The Boston Marathon explosions are news, it's their job to report on it. How much of it is a function of irresponsibility vs. just the nature of technological advancements that allow reporting to be faster? I just don't find this uber-cynicism to be useful or thoughtful. If you see irresponsible journalism, feel free to complain. But painting all outlets and journalists with the same broad brush is just intellectually lazy.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Breaking news is always going to be filled with errors and speculation that later turns out to be mistaken. I don't think that's fire-ready-aim journalism -- in an active news situation's live coverage, you are there with the journalists trying to figure out what is happening. That's not the same as a journalist just making stuff up. Thus far, I haven't seen that with this story.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>But in that environment of on-demand news<< I'm not hating the players so much as I am hating the game. >>How much of it is a function of irresponsibility vs. just the nature of technological advancements that allow reporting to be faster?<< It's competitive pressures, mainly. And the fact that people like us don't demand better. >> I just don't find this uber-cynicism to be useful or thoughtful.<< Here's where you're wrong. Bad information leads to bad opinions and bad decisions. You absolutely MUST be this cynical about the news media as it stands now ... because of the results they're getting. Most of the reporting today has been either mindless prattle ("Well Ted there was a loud boom and then people screaming and running around and a lot of people around me are very upset") or unsubstantiated rumor. Regardless of what's causing it, you'd BETTER be cynical, or you'll find yourself believing a mighty huge steaming pile of horse foofie. >>painting all outlets and journalists with the same broad brush is just intellectually lazy.<< Not if it's warranted. When I said "link please", I was somewhat serious. Because you know that a week from now I'll go to that link and it will be 75% wrong. Even if it's a super-responsible reporter from the New York Times.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Every incorrect report they put out, no matter how quickly they retract it, becomes fodder for the conspiracy nuts later.<< Every correct report they put out, even after verification, becomes fodder for conspiracy nuts. It's what they do. We can't worry about that.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Because you know that a week from now I'll go to that link and it will be 75% wrong.<< That's always the case, because facts tend to come out after time and after we learn more about the motives of whoever is responsible for this. That doesn't mean they're sloppy journalists, they're attempting to cover a story in real time.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>That doesn't mean they're sloppy journalists, they're attempting to cover a story in real time.<< I'm saying how about they NOT cover it in real time until they *have* figured it out. I'm calling for an end to the instant national freakout whenever something bad happens. It's counterproductive. There's nothing about this story that says "we must stop covering absolutely everything else and blather for three or four days" unless you live in Boston or are a marathon fan. But you know that's exactly what's going to happen.
Originally Posted By ecdc It becomes a question of whether or not you believe in a "breaking news" environment. I really just don't mind it because I'm smart enough to understand the nature of it and to treat everything with skepticism. I'm not convinced that it's journalists responsibility to not report just because other people aren't smart enough. Is it their job to protect everyone from themselves? I'm all for holding bad journalism accountable and being skeptical (big difference from being cynical) but saying news agencies shouldn't be reporting...well...anything for hours or days seems a bit extreme. Or at least unrealistic. Tomorrow newspapers will print what we know so far, and they will mostly be circumspect and correct, and over time the correct narrative will emerge for what happened today, and forgotten will be those errors, except among a minority of conspiracy nuts who would remember them anyway. The Kennedy assassination has more conspiracy theorists than 9/11, despite not being a part of the modern breaking news environment.
Originally Posted By hopemax Since this happened at a sporting event, I turned ESPN on instead of the major news networks. One of the first things I heard was Bonnie Ford saying, "Since she couldn't see a specific thing for herself, she wouldn't even begin to speculate." From time to time, they'd cut over to ABC coverage when the videos were coming out, but then come back. I've been following the rampant speculation through the DIS board's post. But it seems like ESPN's coverage is very different than elsewhere. They have had some first hand reports, but very little on who is responsible, terrorism angles, etc.
