Media screws up again...

"gatt" wrote in message
...

Are their deadlines measured in hours or minutes like pressroom reporters
are?


I've often wondered why getting the story first trumped getting the story
right.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"gatt" wrote in message
...

Are their deadlines measured in hours or minutes like pressroom
reporters
are?


I've often wondered why getting the story first trumped getting the story
right.

Form over substance?

Early bird gets the worm?

Firstest with the mostest?

(I wonder what gatt will have to say about my use of clichés.)

If it isn't accurate, it's not NEWS...it's barely EDITORIAL.

(At least they didn't blow up the plane to make a headline, like one network
did with pickup trucks)

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
I've often wondered why getting the story first trumped getting the
story right.

Because they're rewarded by the readers/viewers for getting it first,
for one thing. Not that the trade-off described is consciously made as
often as some would have you believe.

I've often wondered why getting the story first trumped getting the story
right.


It's what people pay for.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message

Are their deadlines measured in hours or minutes like pressroom
reporters
are?

I've often wondered why getting the story first trumped getting the story
right.

Capitalism, and the fact (or theory, at least) that the news source the
reports a story FIRST is the one that people follow the most. But, your
question is valid. The editor exists as the moderator between the
publisher's demand for information NOW and the reporter's human capacity to
report accurate information in increasingly shorter periods of time.

The publisher (and the advertisers) demand the information pronto. The
reporter has to get it all as accurately as possible, and it's the editor's
job to fact-check EVERY story at the last minute. If he/she misses a
deadline it is likely to cost the publication money and the editor his job.

-c

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 14:45:07 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:

I work in Civil Engineering and when one of our people don't the answer,
they ask around to find someone who does. It's not hard, really.

The problem here Tom is that they don't know they are making a
mistake. To them, "stall" means the engine quit. And since having
the engine quit means the airplane comes down, not infrequently being
damaged when it meets earth, it makes perfect sense to them.

Corky Scott

"gatt" wrote in message
...

It's interesting watching pilots trash-talking journalists for not knowing
everything


Pilots don't trash-talk journalists for for not knowing everything. Pilots
trash-talk journalists for knowing nothing about aviation yet
authoritatively saying something about aviation that is incorrect and
frequently harmful to it.



and assuming that journalists make "big bucks." There's
interesting similarities. It's one of the highest-profile and most
treacherous trades, and also one of the lowest-paying.


Because it's something that just about anyone can do.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message

It's interesting watching pilots trash-talking journalists for not
knowing
everything

Pilots don't trash-talk journalists for for not knowing everything.
Pilots
trash-talk journalists for knowing nothing about aviation yet
authoritatively saying something about aviation that is incorrect and
frequently harmful to it.

Everybody trash talks journalists for not knowing as much as they do about
whatever field of expertise they are in. See my point? Yet they still
read the papers, still watch the news...
We've got journalists coming home unceremoniously in body bags from Iraq.
Bet you don't even know their names, but I bet you've seen the footage of
action and soldiers in Iraq.

It's one of the highest-profile and most
treacherous trades, and also one of the lowest-paying.

Because it's something that just about anyone can do.

Yeah, and so is flying. Unlike most readers here, I'm willing to bet, I've
done both so I'm uniquely qualified to say that one is no more difficult
than the other.

Here's an actual case. A streetcar catches fire and because the streetcar
had inadequate or inoperative exits, the people inside tried to crawl out
the side windows but burned to death before they could get out. You've got
a public photo of a burned out streetcar with over a dozen charred corpses
still in the position of desperately trying to get out of the windows. Can
you, or can you not, publish the story? Quick: You have an hour to make
deadline.

Your former state governor is accused of repeatedly molesting a 13 year old
when he was the mayor of your city. Can you or can you not report the
story? If so, will his lawyers sue you anyway?

You witness a murder and recognize both the victim and the killer. Can you
or can you not print a story or show photos, and can you or can you not
print their names.

There's a school shooting. It's major news; people's kids are being killed.
What do you do?
Quick: IT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW AND YOU MUST REPORT FOR LIVE TELEVISION
RIGHT -NOW-.

One of my reporters--an unpaid intern--wrote a critical review of somebody
one time, telling the absolute truth, and ended up with his jaw wired shut
for eight weeks because the tweaker he wrote about saw him on the street.
I've been threatened with lawsuit, threatened with assault...sometimes for
articles I didn't even write.

Have any of you written reporters to correct them, or do you just complain?

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message

It's interesting watching pilots trash-talking journalists for not
knowing
everything

Pilots don't trash-talk journalists for for not knowing everything.
Pilots
trash-talk journalists for knowing nothing about aviation yet
authoritatively saying something about aviation that is incorrect and
frequently harmful to it.

Everybody trash talks journalists for not knowing as much as they do about
whatever field of expertise they are in. See my point? Yet they still
read the papers, still watch the news...

Non-sequitur.

Women get raped, but they still go into town...

We've got journalists coming home unceremoniously in body bags from Iraq.
Bet you don't even know their names, but I bet you've seen the footage of
action and soldiers in Iraq.

Non-sequitur.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message news:BA4yc.32$

We've got journalists coming home unceremoniously in body bags from
Iraq.
Bet you don't even know their names, but I bet you've seen the footage
of
action and soldiers in Iraq.

Non-sequitur.

No, it's no more of a nonsequitor than your exact statment, in response to
my
"It's one of the highest-profile and most treacherous trades" which was:
[you:]

Yeah...so many got killed last year."

Which, like I said, also insinuates that flying is dangerous.

-c