Why publish a story when it is obviously lacking a lot of crucial information? Was there any connection between the assailant and victim? What happened next? Was he charged? Was he released? Were any warrants found? Does this man continue to pose a threat as a serial kisser?
I find it really sad that a half-story like this can get published.
Dean Wright, Reuter's Global Editor for Ethics, Innovation and News Standards - has a great blog, "For the Record." Here is a link to what Wright had to say about journalism in the information age: Are we too fast for our own good?
Wright's post also linked to a more meaty and poignant column on the topic by Sean Maguire: Are we to speedy for our own good?
It was interesting to see Maguire's prespective on speed vs. accuracy in a news service setting. But one thing he wrote stuck with me and I couldn't disagree with more - "Real-time readers understand breaking news is contingent, uncertain and provisional." Assuming that your readers understand that breaking news is contingent is a fatal flaw.
*sigh*
1 comment:
Haste to publish a story is certainly a problem in today's ultra-competitive media. On the flip-side, it's essential to present information expeditiously in today's fast-paced world. So it's really a catch-22, in which neither approach are correct in totality, but rather a healthy balance of the two.
Post a Comment