The Trouble with Turbonews
Thirteen years ago I was in Dallas talking to the online editor (a new concept then) of a newspaper I once worked for, The Dallas Morning News. The trial of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was starting up in Denver, and we were discussing how the story was being covered in the press.
The Morning News had just come under fire for releasing details of a private conversation McVeigh had with his attorney wherein McVeigh said he had chosen the time of day (9:01 on April 19, 1995) for the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building to “increase the body count.”
Detroit Free Press and The Detroit News newspaper boxes are shown on the day the companies announce a plan to concentrate on their online editions and to offer only three days of home delivery of the print newspaper. Most American dailies now focus much of their resources on their online editions, the content of which is accessible everywhere. (AP Photo)
The story went national and appeared shortly before the jury in the federal case was to be selected. The fact the details were published immediately in the paper’s online edition had made it more troubling.
Troublesome disk
The computer disk containing the McVeigh interview was leaked to the Morning News by a member of the defnese team who said he didn’t know the interview was on it. He said he was providing the disk to the paper because of some FBI records it contained.
As for McVeigh, he now told his lawyer he now had zero chance of getting any sympathetic jurors or getting favorable treatment from the judge, since the story had gone national with the Dallas paper’s Web edition.
While none of the Denver jurors would have had reason to see the print edition of the Dallas newspaper, they did have ready access to the online edition and McVeigh’s incendiary comment.
A hazard of the job
My editor friend told me that was one of the hazards of his job with the online edition: The time cushion between the actual event being covered and its publication was gone. It had disappeared in the expectation that the story would go immediately into the Web edition. There was no time for
Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh talks with attorneys Tephen Jones, right, and Robert Nigh. (Ap Photo)
reflection about its possible result in swaying potential jurors in a case where the whole trial had been moved out of state to minimize any influence.
The concept of reporting that is done with such blazing speed is what I referred to first in the mid-1990s as Turbonews. It’s even faster today.
Admittedly, it is impossible to sympathize with Timothy McVeigh. I covered the Oklahoma City bombing myself as a reporter and was outraged by the devastation wrought by this man who was ultimately convicted and executed.
Concerns mount
But, like my editor friend in Dallas, I do worry about the disappearing cushion of time that reporters now face in such potential influential stories as the leaked McVeigh interview. He had not yet been tried when this story came out in the Dallas paper. The appearance of the story could have delayed the trial or even possibly resulted in a defense motion to dismiss for prejudicial pre-trial publicity.
In this case, it is hard to envision the latter happening but — in a less emotionally charged case — it might have.
I also worry about how stories meant for local audiences now automatically become national stories because of the Web. That is especially so when a local story can have a troublesome effect on an event happening in another part of the country.
Pressure of competition
A related worry is an editor’s rush to judgement not just because of the speed that Web journalism publication mandates, but because of pressure to publish now because of a related story another newspaper may be publishing clear across the country.
While this concern is especially acute these days because everyone has access to online editions of newspapers, the problem even pre-dates the creation of the Web.
For example, in 1979, an editor for the Montana newspaper, The Missoulian, felt a rush to judgement on a highly sensitive story involving a young local woman who had been murdered in Washington, D.C. The victim’s name was Cindy Herbig, a star at her Missoula high school
The placid Montana countryside, like the state's Wildhore Island State Park, is not immune from feeling the brunt of tragedies in far-off urban areas as the muder of a young local woman in Washington, D.C. showed. A local editor was left with the distasteful choice of having his readers find out about it from his newspaper or from the Washington Post. (AP Photo/Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.)
who had gone to Radcliffe for a semester, then dropped out of sight and became a prostitute in the nation’s capital. Her murder was one of the brutal hazards of her profession.
The editor, Rod Deckert, received word of Cindy’s death one night from a local funeral home official who was skimpy with details for obvious reasons. So Deckert began exchanging phone calls with a Washington Post reporter who was preparing a big “fallen angel” story for the Post that would appear in a couple days.
Read it here, or there
For Deckert, the problem was that residents of Missoula could buy the Washington Post from local dealers, and the Post planned to amplify distribution of the story through its national news service to media everywhere.
So Deckert had to make a whole bunch of decisions in very quick succession. Although The Missoulian was a hometown paper and had an added mission to treat Missoula residents with sensitivity and respect, he knew the Post’s story could be read by anyone in town. Even had he wanted to present Cindy’s death as an obituary and go light on details, how would readers react in reading the details in a far-off metro daily with no such value-added mission? What might they think of their own newspaper’s covering-up the details?
More sensitive treatment
Deckert chose the option of publishing the details, over the Herbig family’s objections, but doing so in a more moderate way than the Post was doing. It opened itself up for the ensuing firestorm from local readers and advertisers, published some 150 letters to the editor in the days to come, and reserved the final word in a letter from Cindy’s parents.
Deckert at least had a couple days to make these decisions. Had this event happened today, he would have had to make his decisions immediately because of the online presence of newspapers like The Washington Post.
Like oil and water
I have often told my college journalism students that accuracy and speed often mix about as well as oil and water. Given the difficulty of obtaining the best obtainable version of the truth, it is amazing the news media get it right as often as they do. But the pressure that reporters and editors are under as a result of online media has made that job even harder for those who would separate fact from rumor.
As tantalizing and ubiquitious as rumors are on the Web, they too often fall short of the truth.
Any way you slice it, that is bad news.
Thank you for joining our conversation on A Virtual Unknown. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
The term turbonews just brings questions to my mind. For example whats the rush, how accurate is this story and so on. I do not know if I am a big fan of getting the news out as quickly as possible, but I do know that I want my news to be accurate and error free. I say that becasue I know when people rush and are under lots of pressure, sometimes we loose our judgement and things can slip under the radar and go unnoticed because of the pressure to get the news out. So I am not necessarily a fan of Turbonews because of the examples u gave as well. The whole trial with Tim McVeigh might have been a little different if it werent for the online news section of the Dallas Morning News. So in regards to Turbonews, yes it is great that we can access news and information right away but lets also not loose sight of accuracy and compassion too.
This is a sensitive subject in journalism regarding information privacy and information ownership. There is a responsibility to the public to inform the public of news but there is also a moral obligation to be respectful and sensitive to the subject(s) involved in the story. I have mixed feelings about the story of the girl Cindy in the The Missoulian paper regarding her unfortunate death, and the story that was written regarding her death. I have compassion for her family and understand the journalist point of view that there is an obligation to present news worthy stories but at the same time being mindful of the subjects of the news. The journalist had a choice to be sensitive of the families wishes to use discretion and not publish the details and publish the facts of the story because it was his job and duty to the public.
It’s interesting how journalism has developed over the years. Now with the internet it is much faster, or “turbocharged” than it ever was before. I can imagine how difficult the lines between telling the truth and getting out the story can be when it comes down to writing the news immediately after an incident and posting it online, and where those lines can be crossed. The journalists are faced with a very tough situation where, in order to stay credible the need to be truthful and have all the facts, yet they need to make very quick decisions about how to portray the story. The example about the girl Cindy in the Missoulian paper shows that a journalist can write a story that contains the facts and truthful information, but being sensitive and not so harsh with just the cold facts. He needed to get the story out about what had really happened to her, and because it was so tragic and a very sad situation, he was able to tell it in a sensitive way. This is something that is becoming harder to do when a journalist has to write and publish the story on the web right away. But as long as journalists know those challenges and are can make quick moral judgment calls, then they will hopefully be able to include the truth and facts while presenting it in a way that is sensitive to the readers.
It must be a tough call for a journalist to make when deciding whether to publish in depth details to a sensitive subject or to withhold certain information out of respect for the subjects privacy. Journalists, after all, strive to be the bests journalist they can be and the well-known way for journalists to achieve just that is to above all, become credible in providing the truth for readers. In-spite of the case involving the editor from the Missoulian, yes it must have been a tough decision for him to make whether to disclose information about this girl or not however, if other newspapers had already published the details to this story then I personally would have done the same thing. Yes, it may have been upsetting for the family of Cindy to read however, the situation all together is already unfortunate enough. Other newspapers had already published the information and the job of a journalist is to remain as credible to your readers as possible. It would have been a bad reflection of the newspaper to have not published the information when all others had and as sad of a situation as it is, I believe that Deckert made the right decision. Ultimately speaking, news spreads through the internet if not faster than television now-a-days, and I cannot see myself picking up a newspaper when I am an old lady when such information is available with the click of a mouse.
It’s crazy to think how much the internet has changed people’s lives including myself. I remember when I was a child, my grandfather used to read my brother and I the Sunday paper every Sunday. Now, I usually never read a newspaper unless a friend of mine is in it. I only use the internet now, mainly using Google for everything. It must be hard for a Journalist now days to make the decision on whether or not to publish all of the information at had. If you do, you could be harming someone’s reputation, but if you don’t, then your job could be on the line. This decision usually comes down to a person’s beliefs and ethics but the line can often become blurry.
The progressing generations of the world have always demanded more information at a faster rate. With the widespread use of the Internet, waiting time between when the story is discovered and reported is significantly reduced. In newspapers, readers typically read up on news that happened the day before. In magazines, most report weekly to bimonthly reports. Television also possesses a “lag” time since it requires several actively working people to broadcast and report news. However in the information age that we are currently in, reports and stories can be posted to the general public in the blink of an eye. The Internet unlike other faucets of media also possesses the ability to effectively combine text, audio, and visual information for the reader.
I think that online news is great. I have a CNN app on my blackberry that I read almost every hour. Print media being the dying breed that it is still has some strength left in it. Little by little people are becoming accustomed to getting their news from the convenience of their iPhone and Blackberry’s. Raw news has much more leniency when it comes to “printing” errors that lack credibility online. People still want news to be accurate and swift, online outlets allow certain stories to be posted immediately because they can be updated later, or the site can post facts as they come in to help with the validity and accuracy of the story.
Online news is great for me! I am not a newpaper reader and I rarely look at news reports by going online. What I use is the app on my blackberry, as well! I am able to stay up to date on the happenings around the world. I am able to update the reports each time I go to the app to see if there have been any added stories or updates to the ones I have already read. i love it and sad to say, currently, it’s the pnly way I get my news.
As anyone who has worked in the news business can tell you, it is absolutely right that news and deadlines don’t mix well. Some of the worst decisions and mistakes you’ll ever see in a newspaper, on the air or on the Internet are the result of deadline pressure. The drive to get it first often causes journalists to make some unwise ethical decisions.
One interesting example is the election night of 2000. Election results always push deadlines, but the Bush/Gore contest was historical. Because presstimes were looming, but clear answers on a winner were not, it forced newspapers in particular to “go with what they knew,” even if they knew that may not be the right thing to do. Many did not want to run headlines that left the winner in question. They wanted to be the ones to declare the winner so people would wake up and be amazed at how they learned the news first in their local newspaper. TV had it a little better in this case because their format is much more fluid. But most newspapers that morning probably had several editions or makeovers, each declaring a different winner. The hope was the one of them would “have it first,” but of course clarity on that issue didn’t come for months (if ever).
In regard to this blog post and the case of the McVeigh evidence that was posted online, this is a perfect example of the pressure that online competition has forced upon media outlets. The push to have the most shocking news, and have it first, often comes at the expense of ethics. There usually isn’t much thinking about how information like that might affect a trial or someone’s life, especially if the news is juicy enough. Unfortunately, this drive to “go with what you know” online has only gotten much worse since the days of the McVeigh trial in the 1990s. It is always wise for journalists to turn back to the ideas of Kant and Mill and think of the relational consequences when facing a troubling ethical issue, but it is obvious that that doesn’t always happen in today’s online news landscape.
It certainly seems that in the rush to get the news out first those news gathering and reporting entities have forgotten the part about getting it right. I recall the footage of Walter Cronkite sharing with the country the news of President Kennedy’s death and the anchor only reported the death once he had confirmation. This compared to the recent death of basketball legend John Wooden where over a 2 day period it was reported locally that the coach had died only to be re-tracked time and time again. It would seem that this pattern of trying to be first rather than right will continue as those in the news market try to set themselves apart in some way.
The case of the McVeigh evidence being leaked in the media (via the Web) is a great example of how the media and the government (in this case, the legal system) don’t always “play well together.” Nearly every journalist has a drive to get the news first, beat the competition, but often times not much thought is given to what effect publishing that news will have on another person’s life. Especially if that person is presumed to be guilty of something (like McVeigh and Cindy Herbig, the young woman from Montana). As members of the Fourth Estate, all journalists need to remember that they carry a heavy responsibility to serve as a check on the activities of the three branches of government. In that role, journalists need to serve in a watchdog capacity, but often there is a fine line between serving as a watchdog and serving as a judge, determining who is guilty and who is not. Through editorial decisions — which can include what to write about, where the story runs and how it is written — the journalist has the power to shape minds. That is a serious responsibility. It is one of the key tenets of our media system in this country based on Social Responsibility Theory, which relies heavily upon one’s conscious as a primary basis of free expression.
How fast is too fast?
Every news organization wants to be the first to break major news stories. We send reporters into the field with laptops, cell phones, and digital cameras to instantly share news – as it happens. The idea of ‘turbonews’ plays into a journalist’s impulse to deliver news faster than the competition. The Internet allows organizations to timestamp web stories to prove that they scooped their competitors.
Interestingly enough, we have bypassed ‘turbonews’ and now have what could be referred to as ‘instanews.’ During the McVeigh trials news was posted to the web for anyone to seek out and read.
Today, news finds us. We are alerted to news through the beeps or rings on our cell phones and handheld devices through twitter or text messages. We no longer have to seek out the news, it finds us and makes a convient copy of the story in our inboxes.
When a reporter posts an incorrect fact to a website, they still have the chance to go back and edit the story. At that point, only the readers who saw the story during that time would know of the mistake.
However, in today’s ‘instanews’, once a text alert story is sent, the consumer retains the information until THEY choose to delete it. The journalist is no longer able to edit the story once it has been delievered through some social media. This only further complicates the dangers of turbonews and exemplifies the ongoing battle between speed and accuracy in reporting.
The question is: will journalists ever see a reason to return to a slower process of gathering and delivering news? I personally can’t see how – at least not at this point. However, as more and more cases like the McVeigh incident emerge (especially if they begin to hurt people the public considers innocent) we may see reporters pull back and take more time to ensure they are getting their facts straight. My guess would be that lawsuits against news organizations that rush a story and print libel or incorrect facts would be the first real challenge to turbonews. Afterall, media, like everyone else, pay attention when an issue may affect their pocketbooks.
The impact of the web on journalism becomes obvious today as I watch as each one of the miners comes up from the Earth in Chile. It is a miracle that I can watch this happen, as it is happening and I can cheer with the families. When I was a kid, we would have had to wait for the evening world news, or the paper the next morning.
However, it is not always such a good thing. Journalists now have to know how to do it all, take pictures, write and get it in immediately. There is a real danger that all the facts will not be checked. Assumptions may be made that can cost someone dearly, including the journalist themselves. It is hard to maintain integrity and keep up with the cool kids.
I still buy the local newspaper because I know that the Internet is going to eventually run them out of business. It has gotten smaller and full of ads because they are just trying to stay afloat. I rarely read that paper. Instead, I wait until I am at work and read msnbc or cnn. I also pick up the local news online. It is more immediate and easier to navigate. I like the features such as Justice where I can look for stories all over the country. It connected for me when the blog mentioned that papers have to compete with other outlets on the other side of the country. However, for better or worse, it is the reality and we will have to rely on integrity of the journalist and education for the future.
It is amazing to me the rate of turbonews nowadays. What is even crazier are the moral questions being asked and overlooked in order to be the first to publish a story! For instance, the McVeigh story was leaked and could have had negative implications to the outcome. Someone had to think, “Is it right for me publish the contents of this interview?” While, ethically/morally, the answer is no, the media continues to overlook ethical issues in order to produce turbonews. Is it worth being ethically wrong in order to be the first to print? Speed and accuracy surely do not mix but neither does speed and ethics. If this is what our news is coming too, I am truly disappointed, outraged, and frightened to see what the future has in store!
It is scary to think that the McVeigh case could have been thrown out of court because of the information “leak” and possible pre-trial publicity. I agree that with a case of this level of destruction and emotional ties, that would have been far-fetched. But the fact remains that the time cushion between event and publication is nill with the emergence of online news reporting. In a lot of cases, this “turbonews” is a favor to the people. The faster you receive the news, the faster you know the happenings of the world. But as many have stated, the disservice is that faster news doesn’t always mean good judgment of the journalists. The McVeigh case is a clear example of the race for “exclusive” news and competitive edge backfiring, almost with detrimental impact. No matter the deadline, the universal code of journalism should always be met first: truth and social responsibility.
The trouble with turbonews is that of nonstop coverage. “This is event-based reporting, which emphasizes timely reports but has a downside. Stand-up reporters have scant time to think through implications and context. Theirs is a race to cover events more than to provide understanding” (Vivian 281). The same issues for stand-up reporters now apply to web journalism. With news breaking minute by minute allowing little time for journalists, let alone readers, to process it, quality is dwindling.
“Quality erosion shows up in small ways. Reporters shudder at their typos making it online because fewer editors are assigned to check copy” (Vivian 281). Turbonews appears to be more concerned with the quantity of stories published than quality and readers are suffering because “context and understanding are sacrificed” (Vivian 281).
With both reader’s comprehension and the time reporters are allotted to gather and confirm facts taking a backseat in this new era of journalism, turbonews and its nonstop coverage stand to threaten the credibility of the media to the general public and insiders within the field alike.
It’s interesting to see the way different classes seem to ‘match up’ when it comes to subject matter. In the Journalism 680 class, we had been discussing if journalists should be held accountable for making mistakes or reporting inaccuracies. I had taken the stance that with the 24hr news cycle, it almost grants a reporter a ‘get out of jail free’ card. The competition is so fierce, that the mentality has become, ‘get them tuned in as quickly as possible and we’ll fix the mistakes as we go along’.
As far as online “Turbo news” and nationwide effects of a local story, isn’t that now just the world we live in? I understand the concern during the McVeigh incident. The internet was such a new medium that there was no way to understand exactly the effects something might have at that point, but now, the internet has become a primary news source for the masses. Those masses do include potential jurors so would it be more the responsibility of the judicial system to react to the changing technology climate rather than a journalist in New York being concerned with affecting a jury pool in Florida? I have a hard time blaming someone for doing his or her job. It would seem that there are certain ‘lines’ that you just can’t be too concerned with.
It’s interesting that you were talking about a cushion of time and taking it to consider exactly what might happen when a story is published. Are you suggesting that a ‘waiting period’ be valuable before publishing a story, possibly to allow it to unfold or for authorities to do their due diligence? What effect do you think that might have on journalism if we were consistently late in receiving our news coverage or if there were extra moral dilemmas concerning how to conduct the reporting?
The pressure that journalists face when dealing with turbonews can be quite heavy. Not only do journalists feel the pressure of releasing the information first, but they also have to determine in what context the story will be released to their audiences. Because of competition from other newspapers, magazines, television shows, and internet websites, journalists often have to go with the facts that they have. Hoping that the facts they have gathered are correct, journalists fear damage to their reputation when facts aren’t.
The story of Timothy McVeigh is a perfect example of how journalists and the media can make th decision of what content they want to place on the internet for anyone or everyone in the world to read, often before those in the local community have time learn and react to what is posted. The McVeigh story is an example of how a journalist wanted to be the first to release profound evidence in the Oklahoma City bombing. Beating competition and also deciding to publish his remarks were all part of making the known fact into turbonews.
As a side note, years ago turbonews may have resulted more from papers wanting to beat competition, later, and still today turbonews takes to the internet. However today, I feel turbonews is mainly driven by the fact that there are nearly no locations where we do not have access to live news coverage, especially with television stations such as CNN and internet access on our mobile phones.
Turbonews plays a major part in our readings and videos this week concerning where the world of journalism is headed and citizen journalism. With turbonews journalists are being pressured and rushed to release the story they have. The story may not be accurate and may lack facts.
Citizen journalism and turbonews I believe can play into the pressure added. Citizen journalism is taking the job away from a journalist and turbonews may or may not insure a credible story. Either way compeitition is added for the journalist.
In the case of Timothy McVeigh we see how fast a story can be circulated due to technology, online editions and television. We also see that because of this demand and advancement mistakes can be made and accuracy missing.
I am re-minded of the Don Henley song “Dirt Laundry” and the lyrics…”I make my living off the evening news. Just give me something, something I can use. People love it when you lose, they love dirty laundry.” What was once a critical song harping on the seediness of news business now seems to have come to pass, and the world of reporting has become one where “getting it first” trumps “getting it right”.
I have to admit a part of me likes turbonews. Of course I also get me feelings hurt really easy and I can ‘get’ the hurt involved with some turbonews like the one involving the young woman’s murder. Just as you said in your book, there is so little time for fact checking with instant news stories. Some inaccuracies could cause major damage, just like the possibility of a guilty criminal being acquitted from mishandling of their case. You also mentioned, in your text, the reporter who said she had trouble developing stories because she has to report news so often that she never has time to develop a good story. In that regard, it seems like turbonews is just information thrown at us. I like having my news delivered thoughtfully and professionally. Turbonews is not going anywhere though, I’ll just have to learn to pick and choose what to listen too.
I think it is interesting that you said you are concerned that news automatically becomes national news. I actually enjoy reading news from elsewhere. I believe that if something can happen one place then it can happen here. The internet allows everything to become global.
The “oil and water” analogy is right on. Think of all of the mistakes you can make on a daily basis. Now add the pressure of time and deadlines. When you combine that with competition, it can get messy. That’s what the web has done for journalism. In a way, it’s great because of the immediacy. You can get a tweet or a text on your phone warning you of a bad accident affecting your drive home. While it’s convenient, there’s a major margin or error that can occur.
News outlets are constantly pushing for accuracy and immediacy. They’re also under pressure to break the story first. There are generally guidelines stations follow before a story gets posted. They have to separate fact from rumor. They have to source all of their information. What if they get an anonymous tip? It could lead them to a big story or it could simply be made up. Editors, reporters, and news managers should be doing a lot of follow up calls to confirm a tip. Unfortunately, that’s not always easy. Sometimes, people don’t answer their phones or they refuse to comment. What do you do? Well, some stations will go with it. Unfortunately or fortunately, there are several ways to post that story. Not only can you post the story on the station’s Web site, but you can also put it up on Twitter or Facebook. Some stations can send out text alerts to their viewers. If it’s a television station, that actual story may not even make it on the air for several hours. At that point, they’ve peaked the interest of viewers. What if they find out the story isn’t accurate? They can lose credibility.
The Web has done a lot of good for journalism. It’s also very convenient for consumers. News and information from all over the world is at our fingertips. However, it is important for the consumer to understand the side effects.
I think it’s interesting to look at the speed of news over the past fifty years to today. In 1950 it was hurry up and wait. Get the story written and you’re done with it until it goes to print the next morning. Reporters wrote the news for the evening news broadcast and they were done until the next broadcast. I wonder if they ever predicted the great differences in journalism and press that were headed our way for the present day. Even at the time of the bombings, we didn’t have smart phones and surely not everyone had as much access to the Internet as they do today. But still, even then in the mid 90’s we were marveling at the changes of speed and the readers/cosumers demand for the news.
It reminds me of State of Play, the film our class watched and researched this week. The newspaper journalists and the online reporter were working right along side one another. But in reality, is this really true? The two reporters are on a whole different time scheme. This is especially true with the world we live in today in regards to the media and speed. People want real time updates because immediately because they have now been spoiled with real time access. For news networks, it creates more intense competition between long, long time competitors.
In the Missoulian case, I am not convinced Deckert’s decision was the correct one. The local coverage of the case fairly well shattered the entire family of the victim. Perhaps from a purely objective and unemotional journalistic sense it was a good decision, but as a human decision it was quite poor.
One very negative component to “turbonews” or our instant gratification news is that sometimes the news is reported wrong or in the instance with McVeigh case, it should have been held on to for a little while. There is so much competition to get the top breaking stories out before anyone else. With 24-hour access to the Internet–a journalist’s job doesn’t have a time limit anymore when it doesn’t have to wait to go to print. Instant access to new information is not necessarily a good thing all the time. When news is reported wrong, a clarification can be sent out, but in the meantime—it can stir emotions, cause conflict or interfere with the law. That’s not socially responsible.
News sources have always wanted to get the story out as quickly as possible. Think about a newspaper boy standing on a busy downtown street corner yelling “Extra, Extra, Read all about it!” And though most certainly a reporter and/or editor wants to get the story right, there is real pressure to get the story out quickly as well. Is it more important to be the source that “breaks” the story or to get it right? Both are important, but with deadline and market pressure it is easy to see how an incomplete or not fully vetted story might hit the airwaves or cyber world, with updates and corrections to follow. What I find interesting though is that many times in my online searches for information and the millions of hits available, I will find a lot of “old” news posts meaning that incomplete or inaccurate information is available forever unless the original story is pulled or edited which is not always the case.
This blog really hits home with me as a television reporter. I can’t agree more with the comments on how the internet has made it so that important decisions are rushed. It really is the urgency to get out the information before the competition is able that drives this practice. The quote used that “accuracy and speed often mix about as well as oil and water” really can be true. I’ve been taught to understand that accuracy is absolutely more important than speed. Rumors are not an option. Facts must presented and nothing else. The internet and journalism is evolving even as we speak with the use of Twitter and Facebook. Before it may have at least taken several minutes and calls back to the station before news made it to the web, but now reporters are able to Tweet out breaking news right there in the field on their phone. It’s a dangerous, yet valuable tool that must be used with caution.
I would have to agree with your comments and the comments on the Future of News video that getting the information out first doesn’t necessarily make it accurate. It has become more of a race to get the story out first rather than being the most accurate. It’s sad that the web has made personal information more available to anyone that could potentially backfire later.
The expansion of the world wide web has impacted journalism tremendously. With instant access to information and the ability to distribute this information world-wide immediately journalists and editors are put under immense pressure to get the story out quickly. I do believe that most journalists do strive to ensure that they are putting out factual information, but with the intense pressure of looming “instantaneous” deadlines, are corners sometimes cut? But editors and journalists are under multiple levels of pressure, not just to get the correct story out quickly, but media owners with profit-driven motives are applying pressure as well. It is not just about being first, it is also about profits and money.
But beyond the newsroom, there are tweets and blogs sent out by “netizens” world-wide, where there may not be the journalistic or editorial sensibilities practiced within the confines of traditional media sources. How accurate are these sound-bites? Who monitors and checks “facts”? Once again, the consumer’s media literacy rears its head. Today, more than ever, each of us needs to recognize that there may be a bias or mis-information that hits the web and we need to be cognizant of the source.
We live in a society that is showing no sign of slowing down. The public expects immediate access to information and news organizations cannot afford to disappoint. I do think that the creation of instantaneous deadlines certainly increases the amount of inaccuracies reported, but the idea of turbonews also brings the ability to help correct any errors that are made. It’s not uncommon for consumers to view multiple versions of the same story from different media outlets on the Web and through social media circles, so any factual blunders are usually spotted almost as fast as they are posted. So, although the speed of today’s decision-making process lends itself to more mistakes, I also see it as an advantage over the days when a story went to print and corrections could not be made and seen until the following day. One other point worth noting is that the public seems to be comfortable with news journalists (as well as politicians, celebrities and athletes) taking the “It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission” approach when investigating or reporting on news. This mentality also lends itself to making mistakes but we (as consumers) don’t seem to be bothered by facts getting in the way of a good story.
Turbonews is so evident and real in our society today. It’s both good and bad in that it can provide our community with fast breaking news. Weather reports, traffic conditions as well as news on election poles and crimes that could effect our daily life are a benefit to us via smart phones and the internet. However, because we can get information in a flash, we have to be mindful that a) there probably wasn’t a lot of fact-checking in the content; and b)that the accuracey of the story may not prove to be credible because the sense of urgency to get it out before the other mediums do (or competitors do). It’s interesting to me to see how my friends react to the horrible story of Lauren Spierer, the missing IU student. Everyone claims that they have been following the story closly, but everyone’s story is different. I’ve been following the story on my Fox59 morning news report, while one of my friend reads about it on Lauren’s dedicated search Facebook page and another friend reads the headlines on her AOL account homepage. Each news media gets their information from different sources and each has a different time it’s published. There are so many news outlets and updates that it can be easy to get lost in the details of a story. Turbonews is just that…fast news. It almost seems reckless.
I completely agree with Stephanie’s description of turbonews as “reckless.” However, I think it’s both unintentionally and intentionally reckless. With the constant “feed the beast” mode of news media today, journalists are expected to spew out stories faster than they can gather their thoughts and contact sources. This leads to incorrect and overlooked information. It’s cyclical – consumers want instantaneous news, so journalists provide it, then there are errors and consumers want 100 percent factual information, which takes longer, which upsets them … rinse, repeat. No one will ever be completely satisfied, but the bottom line is that factual reporting should come before turbonews. I understand putting a blurb online mentioning a developing story, leaving out any details that aren’t certain. Many newspapers do this, simply adding that they will be updating the story as it unfolds. Unfortunately, in this case, the Web has had an incredible impact on journalism, and the horse race has only just begun.
With the Internet everything is available pretty much instantly. With the development of technology, we don’t even have to wait until we get to a computer to get this information, the world is right at out fingertips, or in out pockets.
I understand that these things are making stories be produced quicker. The journalists don’t have a lot of time to reflect on what the outcome of the article may be. I agree with accuracy and speed mixing like oil and water. There is really no way for someone to catch every detail or mistake of something when being in a hurry to get it out.
It is also easier for information to be leaked like with the Oklahoma City Bomber case. Because of the Internet, it is hard for information to be erased once it is on the web.
However, I also see the Web as being a good tool for journalism. It is another media medium. It allows the journalist to connect with their readers in a new and innovative way.
Like everything in life, we have to take the good with the bad. Nothing is perfect.
Turbonews… such an accurate term to describe news today. I am one who likes to read the news up to the minute and from around the world. I read the local newspapers (The Free Lance Star, The Washington Post, The Washington Times), my hometown newspaper (The Columbus Dispatch), and then I go on Yahoo and read their top stories. While reading those, I get pulled into the trending topics for the hour and the top stories on the right side of the page. I also get pulled into my Facebook friends news that they post. We are the microwave generation… we would like to know things instantly. The days of having the paper delivered is long gone; some newspapers have even gone to online only. With the demand for turbonews comes troubles. At times things are very inaccurate. All the time rumors get started about some celebrity dying and it spreads like wildfire on Twitter or Facebook and people believe it is really news. Also, with the online publications, it gives readers the opportunities to express their opinions through the comment sections. I notice that many times the people that comment aren’t saying anything of substance, they are often being very insensitive to people that may be related to the victims of stories by calling them names or being racist. Many times, family and friends respond in defense of that person. When these things are made public, it could influence someone if there were a trial to come forth from the crime. Turbonews is convenient for the impatient fact seeker or, like me, reader who likes to pass time, but at the same time, it could be ver detrimental if it is big enough to influence or sway the thoughts of people.
Amanda Mikulski
Journ 601
Dr. Jim Willis
October 12, 2011
My response to: The Trouble with Turbonews
Okay, so I am a total Law and Order junkie, so your story about Timothy seems familiar. I remember one episode where something like this happened and a mistrial was declared and the person ended up getting off in the end. Thank goodness this was not the case for him, that whole ordeal was just terrible, so I am glad that an error in judgment did not help him. But, this error in judgment still makes sense. It’s a very competitive harsh journalist world out there, so being first is very important. In the movie I just watched for class, “State of Play” they acted as if being first was crucial, or that the story might as well not run. They even kept information from the police and put their lives at risk. Getting the information out there almost guarantees more reads, because people want the latest and are eager to know what is happening. The second story is more like “yesterday’s news”. But, providing this information first often leaves little time to make sure that all the facts are straight and that all of the details are correct. It seems that this is the issue, a legitimate story with real facts and evidence that takes time or an approximation of the story first. It would be hard to decide on which to give, especially when you are told the only story that will be read is the first one. I guess the best journalists are first and right, which is obviously
The old cliché “Haste makes waste.” comes to mind when discussing the “turbonews” pressures. As children, we are told to take our time and get it right, and we would nearly get reprimanded for being the first one done with things. As adults, we demand information, which has lead news organizations, with a push from an evolving media, to rush to the press with information.
Living in a media crazed world, my first instinct when I hear about something is to immediately go for my phone or a computer; with this impulse prevalent in our society, the journalists and news organizations are pressured to be the first with a story. The part that is overlooked though is, most people respect it is proven their info was incorrect or incomplete.
The competition and urge to get information published before other organizations causes a struggle to balance the element of timeliness and duty (to society and the profession). The consequences of too much emphasis on timeliness can be tremendous. If inaccurate information and incomplete info get published, it could not only damage image/reputation, but it could influence public opinion or possibly interfere with crime trials and investigations. The defense team in the Casey Anthony trial used this to their advantage to get sympathy from jurors, insisting she was not given a fair shot with public assumption of guilt; while this may not be the reasoning for her “not guilty” verdict, one has to wonder if it had some weight. Unfortunately, the media can hurt more than help sometimes if proper judgment is not considered.
The demand for news “right now” breeds haste from web news outlets who want to meet public demand. There is little to no time to think about the ramifications of these online news outlets printing information so soon after it’s made available. This can lead to tainted jury members, like in the case of Timothy McVeigh, or public opinion that is skewed from private information.
Another effect that is explored in this post is how news that is posted hastily can cause judgement on a situation when all the details have not been revealed. Just as in the case with the murdered prostitute, there are journalists who will know little about a situation but pass judgement as they feel their readers will want their take on the situation. There are assumptions that are made that can be very false. It is important that any news outlet know all the facts, report them timely, all while carefully considering the ramifications from reporting the latest breaking news.
I really don’t know how I would decide between accuracy and speed. I’m sure that many journalists have a tough time determining which way to go. I personally would probably go for speed with the facts that I know to be true leaving out anything that is questionable. I know that I prefer quick news in my newspaper rather than a news story I have already heard about from another source. I also believe that I am a reasonable enough person to understand that as a story is breaking some facts may not be quite so accurate and I would assume that most citizens are reasonable enough to understand this as well. So, for me, the speed with which I learn about an event is more important than having everything tied up in a neat little package three days after the event occurred.
The difficulties that face “turbonews” have been elevated in today’s world of social media where a journalist is just as likely to be eclipsed by a fellow professional as an equally interested civilian. Consider the the New Media Landscape spotlight on Neda Agha Sultan who’s death was documented on YouTube and Twitter amidst the Iran presidential election. In this specific case, not only was the media not the first to report but they were forced to utilize the civilian reporting. Howe calls this crowd-sourcing, where, like it or not, the lines between professional and amateur are grayed and it becomes increasingly difficult for the professional to provide an original, relevant story.
Perhaps this age of “turbonews” should give rise to a new generation of creative writers who are not as concerned about popular issues as they are creative, innovative pieces of news.
I wish to point out my appreciation for your kindness for women who need assistance with this particular area. Your real commitment to getting the solution along appeared to be quite beneficial and have without exception helped workers just like me to arrive at their objectives. This helpful help and advice indicates a whole lot a person like me and even further to my peers. Thanks a lot; from all of us.
The internet has largely impacted the practice of journalism, as can be seen with the current state of the industry. There is a great need to be timely and a larger sense of urgency when publishing news online, that it’s no surprise this has affected the quality of stories being reported. “Given the difficulty of obtaining the best obtainable version of the truth, it is amazing the news media get it right as often as they do. But the pressure that reporters and editors are under as a result of online media has made that job even harder for those who would separate fact from rumor.”
It is not only the internets speed that is affecting the way news is delivered, but also the rise of citizen journalists, or bloggers, scooping reporters on their news. This poses a great concern, as many bloggers who reportedly share the ‘news’ are not trained as journalist and do not adhere to the same standards. This is not a concern for the public, as they are interested in getting the news from wherever it is published, whether due diligence is done or not. In the case of the leaked information at the Dallas Morning News, at the time that issue was of great concern , but in today’s environment I think it’s common for individuals to expect information to be leaked over the internet, and this is considered regularly. Such is the nature of news today.
I experienced this very issue as a reporter in Gainesville, Fla. A hunt was on for a suspected killer and we received word from our parent media owner of the killer’s name and background. Turns out in the rush to get it all online, however, that we misidentified the suspect as being the son, a prominent and well-respected professor, when it was his father who implicated in the crimes. Imagine our embarrassment. The Internet is a double-edged sword where competition and pressure to get things out quickly trumps having the whole picture in hand, and that’s dangerous in my mind. In the Vivian text, tight deadlines, smaller staffs and online competition are given reasons as to why editors and reporters are under the gun now more than ever to get stories filed on snap judgments. In today’s perilous news environment where every paper sold and page view counts, the competition is fierce. But journalistic integrity and professionalism should never, ever be circumvented in order to be first. Unfortunately, you can find examples of rushed stories all over newspapers sites, and it’s to the detriment of news organizations and readers alike.
It is interesting to see how timeliness has affected accuracy. No longer are reporters waiting to release the story to make it as good as it can be, but they are now just hurrying it along to be the first out there with the story. I think it has both positives and negatives. On one hand, people can know the story in a timely manner, and make plans accordingly. On the other hand, the stories typically don’t have much detail, so they can be very surface-level.
I do not understand the rush in receiving the news. I would much rather have correct news than fast news. But I do understand the rush due to the competition. It is interesting to me to see how getting our news has changed today. I receive all of my news online, and I get nothing from printed newspapers. Online news sites such as Yahoo are very beneficial because they offer the choice as to which article you want to read. And the stories are short and to the point, which is how people like it these days.
I think it is very important for news reporters to accurately report the news. There are too many cases of reporting false facts in order to get the story written on time and turned in without thinking about the effects of the false facts being reported. It is more important to have enough time to research and get accurate sources to back up your claims. News reporters would be seen as a lot more trustworthy if this is how all news stations were run.
It’s annoying to hear that reporters are more interested in being the first to report something rather than taking the time to report news in the best and most accurate way possible. It’s nice that we have the internet available to us to get the news quicker and easier; however, when you read news on the internet, it’s more likely that the information could be wrong or misleading in some way. I’m typically more inclined to read internet news, and then if it was something of interest to me, I would wait until it goes to print where it is likely more factual and accurate.
It is crazy to me how easy it is for us to receive news now-a-days. I remember watching the American Idol finale last year and 2 minutes later it was all over msn.com, yahoo.com, and many more websites. It is so easy for us to receive news. But just because its easy to receive news doesn’t mean that we read it. I think it is easy to receive news, but as a college student I just don’t watch the news and pay attention to whats going on in the world. And this makes me so lazy because its so easy to learn whats going on and yet I still don’t take the time to learn about the news. I think, especially with the election in session, it is important to pay attention to the news, politics, etc. Because we are at an age where this can really affect us. We are becoming adults and need to obtain this useful information of what is going on in our world.
I find this very interesting because it seems like we are reverting back to the old Bennett news model where there is little room to develop your ideas and points, because you are constantly rushing to beat your competitors. Our present situation is almost shockingly identical to this situation from our past. We have to wonder, though, if we outgrew the Bennett model then, isn’t it just a matter of time before we find it obsolete again? I believe the reason why we’re still doing this is that it caters to the part of us that wants instant gratification. We want all the news and we want it now.
I find that Turbonews can be helpful as well as a hindrance. The timely news that it supplies helps keep its audiences informed, however, the quality is at-risk. As mentioned in the article, the speed of information doesn’t always guarantee proper information. In a way, it depreciates the value of investigative journalism. I think well-crafted journalism is a carefully planned out formula that shares its story with the rest of the world. Turbonews strips its readers of the intimate and meaning relationship we once had with discovering the news.
I think the cometition aspect of the news is silly because a story is a story and no one can tell it better or more accurately than someone else. I think getting the news out fast, however, is important. If we want to stay up to date in today’s world, we must know what is going on when it is happening. The news do a good job of this as far as I can see.
We are at the point in time where we do not have to wait forever to hear news. There are many instances where new will be leaked on online blogs, or websites moments after it happened. With celebrity deaths, and hollywood breakups, they quickly become the front page news. With the news coming out so fast, it is often hard to figure out if the articles are 100% accurate. Publishing these articles so quickly makes me think how much research was really involved. Sometimes i feel as though now, newspapers and magazines just want to be the first to take about the issue, and not really focus on if it is true or not. with the fight to be the best source, many magazines are giving away their credibility.
I do believe that mixture of speed and accuracy is like oil and water. As a reporter your number one obligation is to the truth and it takes time to get that truth. It takes many reread over the facts it takes asking different reliable sources for more imformation. It is getting both sides of the story which is hard to do when it is a emotionally stressed case. It is so much more than just trying to rush out the next story in 24 hours. That is the problem that is happening today. THe news’s number one priority is suppossed to be the truth but today it is more like speed and advertising money.
Although obtaining fast news is beneficially, it can also be inaccurate. I believe news should be effective in both content and speed. I love to be updated by the minute on the things going on in the world. But the news would do no good if its content wasn’t valid or true. I think the only time where it is acceptable to obtain inaccurate content from the news is when reporters are reporting on a tragedy such as 9/11 or the Oklahoma City bombing.
Fast news is very convenient, but it can cause a mix in what is part of the real story and what is not. I think that is obvious when watching breaking news on television in which the reporters are kind of all over the place with their information, like they know the story but at the same time, they don’t. The whole truth is what we as the audience want and need, otherwise we would just turn to gossip magazines or articles. Other than that, I think that any news, even if it is a little mixed up at first, is more news than no news.
The true essence of journalism has been lost due to the web. I see the beneficial need for the web in spreading your work to many people by a click of the button, but there is so much that the web prevents a journalist to accomplish and be accredited for. The web provide everything and anything in our modern society and has allowed everyone to be their own journalist in a sense. From the simple Facebook status to a tweet, each person that is connected to a profile and an updating device is considered to be their own journalist because they post about their life. Without the web, journalist would have to prove their work by editors and teams that would question their article and have the journalist defend their main points. The web allows for all types of journalism to be displayed, but the danger is that the information is not always true or credible.
I think that the trouble with the time frame of instant news is that it is so competitive. So many individuals have the capability of getting their word out and the first person to have it may be getting the best publicity when it may not be the most reliable. This leads to a lack of reliable news from the start. So many people wil search for news and as we all know the most visited page is what will come up first. This display of information will be the first source visited but not because of its credibility. These sites are being visited because of their reaction time and view count to news. This is why I believe popular news chains are important. Reliable information should be displayed to the people from someone they trust who has a transparent record of what they put out.
When I examine the pros and cons of online news reporting, I think the pros of it outweigh the cons. There is something truly valuable about reading a story moments after it happens and having that true up-to-date news story at your fingertips. There is a flip side however, that really tests the validity in the news story if it posted instantaneously after the event occurs. This allows room for error, an incorrect reporting on the subject, or false information to be given. Personally, I think the ability to get news at all times via the Internet is more valuable than the cons that come along with it.
I think that the problem with the whole time aspect is the fact that all the news sources are very competitive. The speed at which something can be published is unheard of. One person could have one vital or shocking piece of information and in seconds someone from across the world could be reading and spreading it. Though the reliability of the source could be questionable. Time is literally of the essence in the journalism realm.
Personally, I love the ability to read or receive updates on a story within minutes or hours, instead of waiting for the next day on the newspaper. However, there is also a concern of how much of the information in the news story is actually correct or made up. It tends to be a half and half, half truth and half presumption. It is a risk when reading stories online; however, there is a risk in reading any news coverage without furthur investigation.
I think that it is important to get information in the hands of the people as quick as possible because the world is constantly changing. However, I still really enjoy reading the newspaper and I can remember times when I was in Montana reading those newspapers with my family. However, I think that if it is a high profile news story, I think the public should know about it regardless if it is completely accurate or not at that time. However, if it is something interesting than why not put that in the paper to read since the information is important but not as important. I do think that many journalists do fall in some traps where they do produce one sided stories so as receivers we need to read multiple accounts of a story to get the full picture.
I really like the concept of oil and water…There is no doubt that the journalism field is more difficult today than it was years before. Having to make immediate decisions can make or break a career or a news media. Online media has it pros and cons, and as long as they are in our benefit we will continue to deliver fast news no matter how half a**ed. And sometimes the news will be delivered quickly with accurate information. It is as similar as an officer in the field of battle having to make a quick and decisive decision. They will either accomplish the mission, or end up in a world of hurt. Either way, online media is here now, we just have to find a way to make it where people want it to stay.
I can not even count how many times I have seen an online article with the words “modified at:” or with a follow up retraction. And the quicker the article is published, the more likely this is to occur. Granted, I know that I as a reader am guilty of the whole reason behind this. I have been conditioned into wanting my news and wanting it immediately. However, I have had to learn to keep my publishers that I value for their speed separate from those that I value for their quality and truth. Due to “turbonews”, I automatically assume that any story published within the first couple hours of an event is semi-reliable at best. Of course, semi-reliable news, in critical news situations, is much better than just being left in the dark, I also understand the pressure being put on online publishers, because I as a student feel it too whenever I have an essay due by a certain deadline. But ultimately, the priorities of journalism in my opinion should always remain truth over immediacy.
For me, it does not make sense how competition has created an impossible demand for information now. We go to the news outlets that give us the best news the fastest. I guess this is simple enough. However, when news outlets began fudging on the quality and the truth of what they were writing/saying, I think they crossed an ethical line. People demand a lot, sometimes too much, and the normal person does not know what it takes to bring us the news. I think there is a responsibility of news outlets to do the news right rather than fast. If they all did it that way, it would not be weird and we would be more okay with waiting for accurate stories.
The internet now allows the press to spread their stories to national and even international audiences, however, I’m not sure if this is a good thing or not. As your story of the Montona reporter showed, sometimes, a local rpeorter has a better understanding of the culture of the town he lives in, then does a reporter far off, living in a big city such as Washington D.C. Maybe it would be better for newspapers such as The Washington Post, to locate local reporters throughout the nation and pass to them details, and allow them to write stories directed at their demographic, then it would be to have one writer in one city write the story. But, that would be too expensive and take too much time, and we live in a culture today where we wants things cheap and we want them now.
While I see the risks inherent in “turbonews” I do not see speed and sensitivity as mutually exclusive. It is possible to release news of someone’s death as quickly as possible while still being sensitive to those affected. And while news sources may be obligated to accuracy, they are by no means obligated to sensitivity. The case of Timothy McVeigh is worth noting, because it highlights the tension between the freedom of press in a free market and the desire to protect the impartiality of the legal system. The case of Cindy Herbig is difficult because I am in favor of the freedom of press to publish whatever is accurate. I think the local paper did the right thing, or at least the best thing possible in the given situation.
I use the Internet to obtain most, if not all of my news information due to its speed and ease. There are no commercials you have to sit through, or pages you have to file through in order to find the story you want to read. You simply point and click and you are reading the latest news. This article on “turbonews” and the pressure journalists face in order to get information out the quickest has shed a new light on how the most breaking news can sometimes not be totally accurate. I believe it is important to keep in mind accuracy vs. speed when reading about the latest news. Although a certain news website may offer the latest news the fastest, it is important to re visit the same source or other sources after the initial news was broadcasted in order to obtain the full story.
I had honestly never thought about the lack of credibility that might accompany “turbo news”. I enjoy the speed and relevancy that often accompanies my receiving of the news in Internet form. But I had also never thought about the pressure that journalists must be under in order to get those news stories out in a reasonable amount of time in order for the story to still be relevant. However, quality is not something that should be overlooked. As a news reader, I definitely am guilty of just reading the headlines though so I do not think that either party is necessarily to blame.
I actually completely agree with this article in terms of the lack of time it takes to really think about one’s actions. Without the proper time to contemplate and mull over the stories, inaccurate information or too much information could be displayed. For example, when the article said that the release of the private conversation between the bomber and his attorneys leaked, it could have exonerated him. Yet, if this were a print newspaper, the story would have to go through an entire system before being published, which would have probably allowed time for more thoughtful consideration as to the implications and potential problems that the story could have brought forth.
As much news as we get today and as quickly as we get it, it is a miracle that it is mostly accurate, yet, we do have to really ponder on the question of the purpose of the news. Technically, the ‘news’ is supposed to give us all of the information, that includes the stuff that we would not want to hear. Even though the news could be damaging, we have to know that its entire purpose is to uncover, explore and spread the truth to the public in an unbiased manner. So, even though there can be issues with the news (and its consequences), we have to remember what the point of it all is.
“Turbo news” has been such a convenience not only for me but for the millions of people that read across the globe. It is so nice to be able to open up my laptop, visit my email and quickly scan whats trending in the world and read through top stories. Its how I obtain most, if not all of my news. The ease of being able to turn on your computer or smartphone/ tablet/etc and search or view current news makes it so efficient that it has become the premier way in which many Americans in my generation obtain news. Although it puts pressure on journalists to pump out stories at a much quicker rate and deadlines become more with fewer time, i think it is important to keep it up. However it does provide room for inaccurate information which could be problematic. Something that we must consider when scanning for quick news stories.
The news is caring more about who is heard from first, rather than presenting the most accurate details. I feel that due to the quick response of the internet, the news outlets are becoming more sloppy in the work they are producing. I feel there are a lot of regrets that journalists make in mistakes they write or decisions they wish they didn’t make. The horrible thing is that once it’s online, it seems that it will never go away and will be available somewhere, for eternity. I feel that news need to stop caring as much about the competition and the business, and more about presenting quality news to its viewers to become more educated about what is happening in the world we live in.
I often fear the credibility of the information we read about on a daily basis because newscasts, magazines, and newspapers are so incredibly concerned for speed and quick facts. As a result, reporters and editors compromise their interpretation of facts and print things quicker than they are confirmed. Times have changed — the media is more concerned with speed and convenience rather than accuracy. Because of that, truth becomes muddled and uncertain. Many times they have to go back and correct the initially stated facts, which comes across as unprofessional and unprepared. Americans are so focused on acquiring news right after it happens, so that puts journalists, reporters, and editors in a very difficult place. There must be a system put in place that allows for accurate information to be revealed, little by little, so that consumers can consider facts, and only facts.
I definitely agree with this article in regards to the news that we are receiving on a daily basis may not be credible. I personally rely on the Internet to receive my news and it honestly never actually sunk in that the news that is displayed on the Internet so quickly may be false. It is actually really scary to think that so many people rely on the Internet to provide them with the news and yet it may not be what we think it is.
Turbonews is such an accurate name for the way in which we receive news and the swift return of details and story lines consumers get after a tragic tale breaks, or a new story plaguing the news. It is concerning to me that because of the expected response report time in regards to the news, that is an evident illustration of why, at times, we get a half truth story, with embellishment and.or complete inaccuracy in facets of the whole story. There is much to be said about a culture that cares more about the speed and timeline of when a story breaks then the minute details of a murder trial and receiving only accurate and honest details and depictions of what happens. In my opinion, the credibility of the source and accuracy should be number one and come first to every reporter who is putting out detailed information regarding the lives, mishaps, and triumphs of other people!
The media is really interesting when it comes to disclosing information and presenting accurate information to the public. It seems that as soon as the media hears of a potential lead, a story is written that often times is not wholly accurate. These stories make it difficult and hard to get information that is reliable and always accurate. Writers and journalists are under extreme stress and pressure to be the first to release a story about a given topic. Speed and efficiency are important in order for the news company to be considered reliable and current. News patterns are interesting to study and the case of the Oklahoma bombing is a great way to look at how information is presented from the news.
It is true that people want current news as fast as possible. But what are we giving up for that speed. Accuracy od stories are being affected because some news medias will jump the gun in some cases and add information in order to seem like they are more accurate then other news competitors. A good example of this is the Chris Dorner case. How many times did a news station say one thing and hours later say something completely different. It seems that news medias are creating the story before it even happens in order to be the first one to report the story.
The internet has became so helpful for me. I obtain all the news and information that I want to read about on the internet, weather its blog post or the online news websites i can figure everything out about whats going on in my country with just on click away. i rarely read the newspaper anymore and i barely watch TV, being that i am a college student i am always on the go and always on my laptop, therefore i am always using the internet for finding information for my classes.
It is interesting to me to think about how much the Internet truly has changed the way that we receive news. As a college student, I rarely read the news from a newspaper. My homepage on my computer is Google News. This allows me to see headlines from virtually any newspaper. It is a strange concept for me to even think of the news without the Internet. It has opened our eyes to what is happening all over the world, and brings it to us instantly. I can see how it could have potential negative effects for things like the McVeigh case, but this is part of our changing world and we are going to have to learn how to adjust. I think it is safe to say that the Internet is not going away anytime soon, so journalists and new sources are just going to have to learn how to manage those effects.