This Guys Pretty Much Nails It

[eric1978]

The media loves this stuff. Too bad they don't have the decency to back off.

It's not that they love it...they love selling their product to their market. If we weren't a nation of morbid rubber-neckers who finds entertainment in other people's misery, they wouldn't have anyone to sell their spectacles to.

[Flysmallie]

People have always been fascinated with others problems. But that doesn't make it right that these media outlets feed on this to increase their profits. That's why there is so much trash on TV and so few good shows that you can sit down and watch with your family. Just because people want something or will watch something is no reason to give it to them. Lots of people want meth, maybe we should just give it to them. Well okay but only if we can profit off of it.

People may want to see it but if there was no profit in it we wouldn't be seeing it.

[eric1978]

I'm just sayin' that as long as there's demand, there's gonna be supply. Blame it on the media all you want, but without crackheads there would be no crack dealers.

[Flysmallie]

There you go defending big business again.

[ness]

Relative to this topic, I find it strange that the death toll from the Moore, Ok tornado actually dropped from 51 to 24. Seems funny they would jump the gun on a death toll.

I read this morning that the authorities made an error and double-counted on some people. They said the difficulty in communicating contributed to that. So, I'm giving a pass to 'the media' on that one. However -- the local TV reporter did say he had it from a very reliable source that there 2 dozen third graders dead at Plaza Towers. And everybody else ran with that number until somebody I heard jacked it to "20 to 30".

[Justin Spencer]

What I can't understand is how we dwell on a story for days and days until something else comes along. I'm as guity as anyone about looking for info as a big story is happening, but don't need everything rehashed for a week. Yesterday's tornado was a perfect example of misinformation, from no kids killed, to 9, to 50 missing, to everyone found and from 91dead to now two dozen. When did it become wrong to say you don't know but are working to find out.

[Al Agnew]

Actually...if you're going to report on something like the number dead, you should simply give your source and let the listener or viewer decide upon the credibility of it. If somebody that's in a responsible position is the source, then it would become their fault if it turned out to be untrue. But if you're just repeating what the other network said, then shame on you. But of course, nobody wants to stick their neck out that far, nor admit that they're copying what some competitor said.

[fishinwrench]

All this scrambling of details among news reports seems to have gotten more common since 9-11. I don't recall so much error in "official reporting" prior to that event. And now, today, we are pretty much conditioned to EXPECT it and accept it.

Not cool!

So now when something inconvenient slips out.....Well....that was just an error in the reporting.

Oh....Ok....WHEW!

WTFever.

[ness]

Actually...if you're going to report on something like the number dead, you should simply give your source and let the listener or viewer decide upon the credibility of it. If somebody that's in a responsible position is the source, then it would become their fault if it turned out to be untrue. But if you're just repeating what the other network said, then shame on you. But of course, nobody wants to stick their neck out that far, nor admit that they're copying what some competitor said.

I have no doubt that reporter heard what he reported. But I think a fundamental part of reporting is to verify information through a second source before you announce it. If the source was as credible as this guy made it sound, he should have named him or given some information as to why he was reliable, not just 'hey, take it from me, this source is reliable.' And he still should have framed it as 'unconfirmed' at a minimum, or maybe just sat on it until there was more certainty. But, the media doesn't sit on things anymore, do they?

These guys should know, as a fundamental part of their jobs, that in times of crisis information can be sketchy. If you've got 10 people witnessing an event, you're gonna get multiple takes on it -- maybe even more than 10. I would bet that reporter heard from more than one person what was going on in that collapsed school. But the number he quoted was 24 and it was horribly off the mark. Any chance he heard numbers more than 24? Nope. Less than 24?? I don't think you can just pass responsibility off to the source, or expect listeners to discern the validity of what's being reported.

Think of the impact that little goof had on people. There are parents, friends, relatives, teachers, whatever were told 24 third graders were dead at Plaza Towers.

I have heard, many times, a network say something to the effect 'CNN is reporting...' or 'we have unconfirmed reports of...' So, yeah they do that, and it's crappy journalism.

[Mitch f]

This is what I was referring to :

Looks like they were confirmed by this source