Controversy over networks giving out false information during Boston Bombings

[TheBigA]

Precisely. That's why the networks and local TV should not do this kind of "coverage."

Let me say this again: It depends what business you're in: The business of conveying information, or the business of attracting an audience. These companies are in both businesses, but attracting an audience is the main one. My bet is that anyone that did this kind of coverage last week saw a ratings increase. Being right or wrong only matters in grade school.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

Sorry, I missed the time out to MODIFY my post above, so I'm continuing on a new one.

Did anybody watch John Stewarts rip on CNN's coverage? Forgive me, because there was nothing funny about the Boston Marathon Bombings. But Stewart's skewering of CNN was hillarious.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/...N-a-new-one-over-Boston-manhunt-coverage.html

 

[FredLeonard]

Precisely. That's why the networks and local TV should not do this kind of "coverage."

Let me say this again: It depends what business you're in: The business of conveying information, or the business of attracting an audience. These companies are in both businesses, but attracting an audience is the main one. My bet is that anyone that did this kind of coverage last week saw a ratings increase. Being right or wrong only matters in grade school.

Guys like Hearst and Pulitzer a century ago, and Rupert Murdoch today, made no bones about what business they were in. I don't care if TV goes the tabloid, sensationalism, yellow journalism route. What bothers me is all the sanctimonious hypocrisy they dish out, pretending they are not down in the gutter doing "headless body in topless bar" stuff.

 

[TheBigA]

What bothers me is all the sanctimonious hypocrisy they dish out, pretending they are not down in the gutter doing "headless body in topless bar" stuff.

And so you think newspapers today are immune? Really?

Everybody's selling something, regardless what you might think.

 

[FredLeonard]

And so you think newspapers today are immune? Really?

Everybody's selling something, regardless what you might think.

A cynical viewpoint, eh?

Papers like the New York Post and New York Daily News are very clear about what they are and why they try to do. So is the New York Times. Everybody sells something and some practice truth in marketing. TV on the other hand acts like the Post and tries to pretend it's the Times. They try to pretend that their Ken and Barbie, beautiful and well-coiffed TelePompTer readers and mic holders are "journalists." They like to talk about stories they are "working" but in fact they take news releases and get talking head sound bites. They go do stand ups where nothing is happening and read info from a news release and call it reporting. They keep talking and call it coverage. TV is not about coverage news; it's about appearing to cover news.

 

[TheBigA]

They go do stand ups where nothing is happening and read info from a news release and call it reporting. They keep talking and call it coverage. TV is not about coverage news; it's about appearing to cover news.

So don't watch. No one's forcing you. But the current trend seems to favor form over function. Your beef is more with the audience. Too bad they're not all as smart as you.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

As we also saw in the school shooting, there are people "unauthorized" to speak to the media who speak to the media anyway, and the media give them anonymity. Did it occur to the media that there's a reason why these folks are "unauthorized"?
Often in the first hours of a big story like this, the investigators who know real facts are too busy to be leaking stuff to the media. So clearly, the people who are doing the leaking are getting the info second-hand themselves.

Two of the nation's most pivitol stories of the 20th century were driven by major market newspaper journalists exploiting anonymous sources. The identity of the most secretive source in the iconic Watergate scandal, "Deep Throat", wasn't even revealed until shortly before his death some 20-years later. The 1972 Presidential election was rocked by reports that Democrat George McGovern's pick for VP, Thomas Eagleton, had undergone psychiatric treatment. The stigmatized Eagleton soon withdrew from the race, even after the story's author, syndicated columnist Jack Anderson, offered to back-walk if Eagleton could substantiate doubts over the story's credibility.

True, the enduring imprints of both stories were framed by the broadcast media. But they broke in the printed media, and both were reported ostensibly on the strength of secret sources.

 

[FredLeonard]

So don't watch. No one's forcing you. But the current trend seems to favor form over function. Your beef is more with the audience. Too bad they're not all as smart as you.

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." - H. L. Menken

TV, and especially TV news, went to hell when anybody could afford a TV. And when corporate greed trumped public service.

For a long time, the only broadcast news I paid attention was NPR but lately they've dumped down and tarted up and become as bad as the rest - including running with false information from Boston.

Fortunately, news demos are old. At some point the bean counters will get the networks out of the news business.

 

[OldNumber7]

As we also saw in the school shooting, there are people "unauthorized" to speak to the media who speak to the media anyway, and the media give them anonymity. Did it occur to the media that there's a reason why these folks are "unauthorized"?
Often in the first hours of a big story like this, the investigators who know real facts are too busy to be leaking stuff to the media. So clearly, the people who are doing the leaking are getting the info second-hand themselves.

Two of the nation's most pivitol stories of the 20th century were driven by major market newspaper journalists exploiting anonymous sources. The identity of the most secretive source in the iconic Watergate scandal, "Deep Throat", wasn't even revealed until shortly before his death some 20-years later. The 1972 Presidential election was rocked by reports that Democrat George McGovern's pick for VP, Thomas Eagleton, had undergone psychiatric treatment. The stigmatized Eagleton soon withdrew from the race, even after the story's author, syndicated columnist Jack Anderson, offered to back-walk if Eagleton could substantiate doubts over the story's credibility.

True, the enduring imprints of both stories were framed by the broadcast media. But they broke in the printed media, and both were reported ostensibly on the strength of secret sources.

No argument here. But both those examples involved knowledge that had been obtained by the leakers over a period of weeks, months and years. That's not quite the same thing as "breaking news" situations where someone is leaking stuff that is being learned on the fly and might not pan out. Don't get me wrong, anonymous sources are critical to real investigative news. But in breaking news situations, they can cloud the story as much as add to it -- and the missteps are plain for all to see.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

As we also saw in the school shooting, there are people "unauthorized" to speak to the media who speak to the media anyway, and the media give them anonymity. Did it occur to the media that there's a reason why these folks are "unauthorized"?
Often in the first hours of a big story like this, the investigators who know real facts are too busy to be leaking stuff to the media. So clearly, the people who are doing the leaking are getting the info second-hand themselves.

Two of the nation's most pivitol stories of the 20th century were driven by major market newspaper journalists exploiting anonymous sources. The identity of the most secretive source in the iconic Watergate scandal, "Deep Throat", wasn't even revealed until shortly before his death some 20-years later. The 1972 Presidential election was rocked by reports that Democrat George McGovern's pick for VP, Thomas Eagleton, had undergone psychiatric treatment. The stigmatized Eagleton soon withdrew from the race, even after the story's author, syndicated columnist Jack Anderson, offered to back-walk if Eagleton could substantiate doubts over the story's credibility. True, the enduring imprints of both stories were framed by the broadcast media. But they broke in the printed media, and both were reported ostensibly on the strength of secret sources.

No argument here. But both those examples involved knowledge that had been obtained by the leakers over a period of weeks, months and years. That's not quite the same thing as "breaking news" situations where someone is leaking stuff that is being learned on the fly and might not pan out. Don't get me wrong, anonymous sources are critical to real investigative news. But in breaking news situations, they can cloud the story as much as add to it -- and the missteps are plain for all to see.

No argument here either. You're right, beaking news like the Boston Marathon bombings offer greater challenges than the episodic stories of Watergate and Eagleton. So, how do we fix this problem? Boots in the sand will always happen in "breaking" stories, not because of media frenzy alone, but rather the appetites of viewers glued to their TV sets, coveting every new detail, which inspires the networks to compete for "first to report" honors.

 

[TheBigA]

Fortunately, news demos are old. At some point the bean counters will get the networks out of the news business.

According to you, they already have.

What you want is a news service that isn't dependent on things like market forces. You want an American BBC. But even the Beeb has screwed up. No one will ever be good enough for you.

 

[OldNumber7]

As we also saw in the school shooting, there are people "unauthorized" to speak to the media who speak to the media anyway, and the media give them anonymity. Did it occur to the media that there's a reason why these folks are "unauthorized"?
Often in the first hours of a big story like this, the investigators who know real facts are too busy to be leaking stuff to the media. So clearly, the people who are doing the leaking are getting the info second-hand themselves.

Two of the nation's most pivitol stories of the 20th century were driven by major market newspaper journalists exploiting anonymous sources. The identity of the most secretive source in the iconic Watergate scandal, "Deep Throat", wasn't even revealed until shortly before his death some 20-years later. The 1972 Presidential election was rocked by reports that Democrat George McGovern's pick for VP, Thomas Eagleton, had undergone psychiatric treatment. The stigmatized Eagleton soon withdrew from the race, even after the story's author, syndicated columnist Jack Anderson, offered to back-walk if Eagleton could substantiate doubts over the story's credibility. True, the enduring imprints of both stories were framed by the broadcast media. But they broke in the printed media, and both were reported ostensibly on the strength of secret sources.

No argument here. But both those examples involved knowledge that had been obtained by the leakers over a period of weeks, months and years. That's not quite the same thing as "breaking news" situations where someone is leaking stuff that is being learned on the fly and might not pan out. Don't get me wrong, anonymous sources are critical to real investigative news. But in breaking news situations, they can cloud the story as much as add to it -- and the missteps are plain for all to see.

No argument here either. You're right, beaking news like the Boston Marathon bombings offer greater challenges than the episodic stories of Watergate and Eagleton. So, how do we fix this problem? Boots in the sand will always happen in "breaking" stories, not because of media frenzy alone, but rather the appetites of viewers glued to their TV sets, coveting every new detail, which inspires the networks to compete for "first to report" honors.

Short answer: There is no obvious fix, and the risk is that the screwups will become so rampant that consumers will either 1) learn to doubt everything that's being said about everything or 2) blur the distinctions between major media companies and tiny Internet sources -- granting Joe's Twitter Account the same authority as CNN or The Times. I think both things are already going on.
As long as news is entertaining, they'll watch it. Whether they'll trust it is another story.

 

[TheBigA]

As long as news is entertaining, they'll watch it. Whether they'll trust it is another story.

That's what's happening here. I find it interesting how many of the entertainment news shows, like Extra or Entertainment Tonight, are still covering this story a week later. The suspect has become a celebrity, and people connected with him, including family and friends, are being interviewed by everyone with a camera and a microphone.

 

[landtuna]

That's what's happening here. I find it interesting how many of the entertainment news shows, like Extra or Entertainment Tonight, are still covering this story a week later. The suspect has become a celebrity, and people connected with him, including family and friends, are being interviewed by everyone with a camera and a microphone.

WRONG! A 'celebrity' is someone being celebrated for something, usually some skill which most others don't have. A celebrity is usually admired by common people for their abilities. I would not say the marathon bomber is any sort of a celebrity. But he is popular as a topic of discussion. People want to know what was behind this deplorable act as the great majority of us would not consider this type of action no matter what the imputes.

 

[TheBigA]

WRONG! A 'celebrity' is someone being celebrated for something, usually some skill which most others don't have. A celebrity is usually admired by common people for their abilities.

That may be your definition. But for these shows, a celebrity is someone famous.

 

[landtuna]

WRONG! A 'celebrity' is someone being celebrated for something, usually some skill which most others don't have. A celebrity is usually admired by common people for their abilities.

That may be your definition. But for these shows, a celebrity is someone famous.

Webster's defines celebrity as:

1: the state of being celebrated : fame
2: a famous or celebrated person

Tsarnaev would be infamous as in famous for negative reasons. The junk TV shows misuse of the label do not change it.

 

[TheBigA]

The junk TV shows misuse of the label do not change it.

Suit yourself. As I've said several times, these shows are in pursuit of audience and ratings, and that's what this guy gets. He's also on the cover of People. I expect a made-for-TV movie very soon.

 

[FredLeonard]

In 1961, historian Daniel Boorstein defined a celebrity as someone "famous for being famous."

 

[landtuna]

In 1961, historian Daniel Boorstein defined a celebrity as someone "famous for being famous."

That's a good TMZ definition.

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

I have three other historical examples of false information being given out by the news media:

* On the evening of August 12th, 1945 (six days after the atom bomb hit Hiroshima, there days after Nagasaki was hit by an A-bomb, and two days after Japan indicated they would surrender if Hirohito could stay; the Allies responded that Hirohito could stay but would be subject to control from the Allies) at 9:34 P.M. Eastern time, a false news bulletin hit the United Press wires noting that Japan had accepted Allied surrender terms.

But within a minute or two of that initial flash, UP issued a "Kill!" order, meaning the story was false. Japan did formally surrender, but it was not announced by Washington (and the other Allied capitols) until early on the evening of August 14th (Eastern time).

At http://archive.org/details/1945RadioNews , you can scroll down and hear the false flash as reported on Mutual by anchor Gabriel Heatter, and a commentary by Cesar Searchinger (then of NBC News) which begins with a summary of the false flash.

* On March 30th, 1981, when President Reagan and White House Press Secretary James Brady was shot, a wire service (AP?) story falsely reported that Brady had been killed. Not long after, the White House issued a statement that Brady was still alive.

Many who are old enough to have been around that day recall watching ABC anchor Frank Reynolds puzzled, then pounding his fist on the anchor desk, angrily fuming "Let's Get This Thing Nailed Down! Let's Get This Thing Right!". If you're not old enough, or if you were watching another network at the time, you can find a clip of Reynolds' outburst on You Tube.

* Both of the above incidents happened long before the Social Media era, but the third incident happened just yesterday (April 23rd): A false tweet on the AP's Twitter account reported that there had been explosions at the White House and that President Obama had been injured. The AP shortly afterwards reported that that tweet was false, and that the account was hacked.