# The accuracy of news reports; quoting those reports



## uphillklimber (Nov 5, 2004)

x


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 5, 2004)

while i can not comment on the report and news event you cited, news as entertainment was one of many reasons why i stopped watching TV.  sensationalism and highly charged words gets views glued to their TV which translates into higher advertising dollars.  i generally get my news from NPR which doesn't sensationalize their news (it's a lot harder to sensationalize without images anyways) or from news sites on the web that i trust from having background checked their articles against other articles and known facts.  unfortunately, many people base their knowledge on suspect news reporting in which nothing said or shown may exactly be false or what not, but charged and emotional and meant to elicit an emotional and unthought out reation.


----------



## Alpinista (Nov 5, 2004)

OK, I'm going to show my bias here but ... PLEASE don't confuse TV for "real" journalism. I'm an editor for a large news service, and we take pains to be accurate, fair and balanced -- we have to be since we are technically a membership cooperative with members that are conservative and members that are liberal -- and we have very strict rules on how and when we use material from anonymous sources. For example, we cannot ever use anonymous sources to spout opinion. 

I can't tell you how many times we hear a TV station say, "WXYZ has just learned ..." and then go on about a story they didn't do a single bit of reporting on. They've "learned" it because we fed it to them. Ugh.


----------



## JimG. (Nov 5, 2004)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> while i can not comment on the report and news event you cited, news as entertainment was one of many reasons why i stopped watching TV.



I watch very little TV, no news on TV, and rarely read the newspaper. Other than music, the only radio I listen to is NOAA weather radio. And still the major events of the day somehow filter into my brain, just without most of the negativity and editorializing. Call me ignorant, but I'm also blissful.


----------



## Caleb (Nov 8, 2004)

Aviation accident reporting is tops on my list for worthless. TVLAND will get maybe 1 or 2 knowable facts and call it news, which is an infurriating. facts available are usually: number of engines, type,  weather, route, # souls onboard, ifr/vfr, comm with a ground control, etc. But what we get is 'A plane fell out of the sky today. Everybody died including the pilot' Theey never forget that part either 'including the pilot' . Why? because it makes people feel better knowing the pilot was killed too. It's a wierd comfort they unconsciously provide. but for those of us who fly and need to learn from the accident, just knowing that people died and then not having more facts drives us crazy. Caleb


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 8, 2004)

uphillklimber, i've noticed on almost every story the kind of lack of follow up from the media you just described.  the reason media do not follow up on their stories is easy:

because saying you're safe, the danger is past, we were wrong about a report, and we're all in the clear, etc. is a lot less sensationalized, gets fewer ratings, and gets fewer viewers glued to the TV than another fresh off the press story about why you're in danger, and what just killed someone else, and if it can kill you, etc.  media follow up is simply aweful in all journalism, even the outlets i consider good sources do a horrible job in this department.

there are several great books on media issues and topics.  unfortunately, many are slanted to the right or left which really sucks because the media slant is not left or right, the media slant is slanted towards fear and the people controlling it regardless of political lean are conglomerates and corporations that want to slam more ads down people's throats and get upset when TV ratings aren't doing good because ratings are down and/or people are switching to other more sensationalized stations.

the sad part is most people complain about it but never do anything about it.  i say turn off the TV and head for the internet and do your own research.  it's more rewarding, you get better information, and you put up with less fear mongering, crazy headlines, hyped up lead ins, and scarey sound effects.  i noticed fox wass usually the worst offender of these tactics when i used to watch TV, but the other networks weren't much better.


----------



## salida (Nov 8, 2004)

It is obvious you guys have done a lot of research...

My sole opinion of america in general is: Think for yourself, don't let someone on the news think for you, don't let your friends think for you, be your own person and formulate your own opinions, not just replicating the opinions of those around you.  

-porter


----------



## Alpinista (Nov 8, 2004)

You all bring up some interesting points. If, as a journalist, I may interject a couple of points -- we report the "news." If something works right, that's very rarely news. It's when things go awry that it's news. Some may view that as feeding fear, but that's the reality of what news is. That said, I do try in our own shop to have our reporters write about "fun" uplifting stuff as well to balance it out -- like hiking the entire AT, spending a night with Springfield's homeless who have bonded in a tent city (depressing, obviously, that people are homeless, but uplifting in that these people have formed a solid community to help one another), etc.

Secondly, we can only report what we know or are told. We do often fail on follow-up. Sometimes it's because some other news event has erupted on the horizon and we only have so many resources to chase the latest news event. We have to go after the latest news or else we'd be irrelevant. Other times, authorities make it difficult to get any reliable information. 

I do believe that journalists have at times done good things -- only to be stymied by politicians or business interests. For example, in the wake of the Rhode Island nightclub fire, several news outlets pointed out the failings in the state's fire code regulations. Politicians talked a good game early on about requiring sprinklers in all restaurants and clubs. Months dragged on, and businesses claimed it would be too expensive. Rhode Island has done very little since then. I guess 100 lives didn't mean much to them. After all, they won't be voting any more. But that's just the nasty journalistic skeptic in me.

Lastly, believe it or not, we're human. We make mistakes. So the best thing the American public can do is to read and view everything with a bit of healthy skepticism and if you truly want to find out as much about a certain news event or topic, go to more than one source. I know it's difficult in our busy lives, but that's the best way to educate ourselves.


----------



## Alpinista (Nov 8, 2004)

Yes, clearly the Rhode Island nightclub fire wasn't started because of a lack of sprinklers. There were a variety of factors that all came converging on that fateful night -- a boneheaded decision to set off fireworks, highly flammable foam that had been placed around the stage for soundproofing, concertgoers jammed in like sardines -- as well as a lack of sprinklers or clearly marked exits.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 8, 2004)

Alpinista, didn't mean to slam all journalism so hard in my post.  there are some very solid news organizations out there and kudos to you and your team if you're part of one of those organizations.

however, i disagree that following up on older stories isn't news.  following up on a story that has changed or evelolved is still a new story, its still 'news'.  kudos for balancing out the news with the other stories you mentioned.  i highly disagree that when things work right, they are not news worthy.  i think that's just the negative mindset we have all gotten ourselves into.  i know of at least one news site that is dedicated to reporting one happy news story every day.  i wouldn't be surprised if there is a TV channel or two being planned to delivery the same thing.  the perception that only negative effects or things that are not working right are news worthy is not valid in my point of view.  it's what drives ratings and makes people buy newspapers and turn on the TV.  those are the stories that earn ratings and make money, yes.  but news?  news must be more broadly defined than negative current events in which something is broken.

i guess that last thought brings up the real issue with journalism: as long as journalisms survival and growth is tied to money from advertisers and corporations, the news will never be completely laid out idealy.  journalists are definitely in between a rock and a hard place in trying to satisfy both advertisers who pay the bills and the public that have (justifiably) high demands).

any one who wants a great read on the subject of journalism and it's potential pitfalls owes it to themselves to read manufacturing consent.  what a book.  it's meticulously detailed and thus very dry, but man is it an eye opener.


----------



## Alpinista (Nov 9, 2004)

No worries. I didn't take it as a slam. I work for a very reputable news organization (I can PM you with it, if you like. I just don't like to advertise it in public). FYI, the media outfit I work for doesn't take and need advertising; we answer only to our members, who are liberal, conservative and in between newspapers, TV, radio and Web sites.

I think you may have misinterpreted one thing I said. I didn't say follow-up stories aren't news, I only mean that it's not uncommon that media don't do the follow-up news stories because some other big news event has overtaken us, and our resources are limited -- so we go with the immediate news story in front of us. 

Certainly, the media has to do a better job of covering happy events. But by its very nature, news is about things that don't go right. Otherwise, we'd be writing stories every day about: the mail got delivered on time (well, maybe that's a bad example since that's highly unusual!   , the traffic lights worked right every time, etc. Some news, but not all news, is generally about the unusual, things that didn't go as planned, etc.

Think about this too: How many of us pass a bad accident on the highway and DON'T look?! As much as people say they don't like bad news and that the media focuses on depressing things, I'll bet most of us can't resist the urge to slow down and check it out. And then, how many of us want to find out about it in that night's TV newscast or in the newspaper the next day?


----------



## JimG. (Nov 9, 2004)

Alpinista said:
			
		

> Think about this too: How many of us pass a bad accident on the highway and DON'T look?! As much as people say they don't like bad news and that the media focuses on depressing things, I'll bet most of us can't resist the urge to slow down and check it out. And then, how many of us want to find out about it in that night's TV newscast or in the newspaper the next day?



Well, I do look to see if anyone needs help, and I've stopped to help when it looks like I can be of assistance and not in the way. However, I usually have to slow down because other people are gaping at the event, not because I want to. And I sure don't look at the news to see more details later on...that's bordering on the morbid. I'm no angel, and I don't fool myself into thinking the world is a terminally happy place, but I try to deal with the negatives by avoiding them or tuning them out. 

Part of that attitude is not bashing or putting anyone or anything down, and I certainly see the need for news organizations. But you mention that fresh news often overtakes older stories before they fully play out. Seems to me that life is short and attention spans even shorter; doesn't that kind of abbreviated reporting hasten both processes? 

I know journalism is a very competitive industry and that what happens is dictated by both recognition and money, but I wish we could step back and slow down just enough to see the majority of good that here is out there.


----------



## Alpinista (Nov 9, 2004)

I guess the bottom line is that I can't issue a blanket denial at some of the points raised by this thread -- or a blanket embrace of them either. News judgment is just that, a judgment call. In some cases, we make the right one; other times, we don't. There are a host of factors that contribute -- the experience level of the reporter/editor, the skill level of the reporter/editor, etc. 

I'm sure I've made tons of mistakes in this business I've been involved with for 20-plus years. But some of the moments I think of fondly are the ones when I busted my butt to convey to my readers something newsworthy, something that when they listened or read the news the next morning, they would have learned something new, something that might -- just might -- make a difference. 

When I was a politics reporter, there were times when I felt I was too harsh on a politician, and other times when I felt as though I should have questioned them even more closely, but by and large, I felt I gave everyone a fair shake; whether I believed in their position or not, I always tried to make sure they got a chance to at least air theirs.  Now that I'm an editor, I'm glad I can instill in my staff those same basic rules of fairness.

There have definitely been times when I felt a fellow reporter was too quickly dismissing someone's point of view, or grilling someone too harshly, or being unfair in what they either included or excluded from their articles. But I've rarely seen that done out of some sort of hidden agenda.

This is a long-winded way of saying that I can kind of respond in generalities about the news business, but it really has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. But I wouldn't mind chatting about it over a beer!  :beer:


----------



## JimG. (Nov 9, 2004)

Alpinista said:
			
		

> This is a long-winded way of saying that I can kind of respond in generalities about the news business, but it really has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. But I wouldn't mind chatting about it over a beer!  :beer:



You have a tough job; it's nice to see how open minded you are and it's clear your heart is in the right place because you aren't the least bit defensive about what you do. I certainly never intended to imply you have any hidden agendas, nor do I feel that way about the media in general although there are times it is obvious there is an agenda of some kind; it's impossible to go through life without one!

I enjoy open minded discussion and if the opportunity does arise, the beers are on me  .


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 9, 2004)

amen to JimG.'s last post.  i think those of us that have replied critically in this post are in the minority in that we probably wouldn't be the one's slowing by a crash site and running home to the news later.  i actually make it a point to NEVER look to the side when passing a crash site, i'm too busy yelling at the rubber neckers.  but that is actually finding human instict to be curious and nosey.

what i see is the news media catoring to that end of people that can't fight their innate human instincts.  often times media replies to critisism by suggesting that they are giving people what they want.  the question becomes is giving people the news they want when they want it producing solid journalism?  or does risking losing readership/market share by trying to remain credible and on point become an issue.  would a news organization purposefully do what's right for the news and reporting of it rather than cator to mass appeal and what the people want.

that gets hairy i can imagine as to uphold the basic principles of reporting sometimes it means going against what is demanded by viewers and/or advertisers.  much respect Alpinista for your thoughts in this thread.  i definitely think i might have been too harsh with my initial comments, i am about as critical as they come in regards to the media and your comments were good food for thought.


----------



## Alpinista (Nov 10, 2004)

Just a quick follow-up to say "thank you" for your honesty in expressing your opinions about the news media. Not surprisingly, most journalists hang out with basically just other journalists, and it's way too easy to get insulated and very narrow views of what "real" people think about the jobs we do. So -- thanks for the reality check!


----------



## pedxing (Nov 19, 2004)

This is an interesting and thoughtful thread.  I've got a few responses to things.  First, I agree that its important to have careful follow up reporting of hot stories - after the initial excitement has gone, and the facts are sorted out.  Too often these never happened or are buried deep somewhere.

First off, the tainted beef story involved a lot more than the Jack in the Box.  I don't know the full story of the Jack in the Box restaurant, but I do know that 2 years ago lots of tainted beef that killed one person and made dozens sick was traced to one Beef processing plant.  Here is one source of info on this: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec02/beef_9-20.html.

Secondly, I've been learning a lot about the Rhode Island night club fire.  I went to a burn survivors conference last month and roomed with a survivor of that fire.  It takes more than a spark or a flame to create a conflagration that kills.   Sprinklers do save lives.  The things Alpinista mentions like overcrowding, highly flammable sound insulation, poor fire planning, lack of avaiable and marked exits were all factors.  Also, there was poor crowd behavior - panicked people jammed doorways and couldn't get out.  My roomate seems haunted by the image of an arm sticking out from a pile of bodies at the main exit.  He repeated several times, "someone could have pulled on that arm and saved a life - but no one did."   I don't know the full story of this, and know that he had blacked out around the time he saw this - so I do not take it as fact.

Lastly, I've had some personal experience with news stories about me this year.   Inaccurate information that I'd been burned trying to put out a fire came out, I think based on my comments to fire-fighters at the time of the fire.  I felt guilty about stupid efforts to put out the fire and said something (I should have just waited for the fire department to try to save the inaminate things that might burn), but did not get burned in the process of doing so.  A later story was probably overly flattering (it was titled "father called hero").  Later, we had a national news team come out and film and interview and re-enactment.  I think it will not air (it's been 5 weeks and we've heard nothing about it airing) - but it was interesting.  There were really two reporters, one was the "face" - a very telegenic, slim, attractive - and very bright woman and an older guy, also bright and probably more experienced who did more of the standard reportorial work (since he didn't have to be bothered with on-camera considerations).   They made a pretty good team, both respected each others intellegince.  In conversation and watching them work, it was clear that for TV news - commercial ratings are first and foremost.  Everyone lives and dies by ratings.  Good reporters still have a strong desire to provide good information and public service, but without ratings they will have no air time.  Hopefully we, the consumers - who make up the market - will find ways to reward good reporting and public service.


----------

