Media screws up again...

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

It's what people pay for.


Not me.

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

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

It's what people pay for.


Not me.

And others less and less...dramatically.

It's what people pay for.

Not me.


Like I said, it's what people pay for.

Jose


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

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message news:tr5yc.40

Turnaround from an
actual news event to press, or air time, is measured in minutes.

So, their own self-imposed restriction is a child's excuse for inaccuracy?

And they wonder why their market is crashing.

CNN's market is crashing?

Have you watched the news lately?

-c

"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

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message news:40c92722$0$78545

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.

Yep. Consumer demand.

-c

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message

It's what people pay for.

Not me.

On 9/11, when you first heard about what was going on, what did you do? If
you flipped on a news station (TV or radio) and it wasn't telling you what
was happening, you likely flipped the channel. The network that carries
the info first is statistically the one you're most likely to tune into or
read. They have advertisers (disgusting as that sounds wrt 9/11) and they
have ratings. The ones with the highest ratings draw the advertisers.
Statistically speaking, advertising works. In the royal sense, if "you"
flip on the news, "you" do, in fact, pay for it.

For actual accuracy, weekly or even monthly newspapers, programs or news
magazines are going to be more accurate because they are not under such
narrow deadline.
-c

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message news:h8hyc.9

It's what people pay for.

Not me.

And others less and less...dramatically.

Any time there's a news event, everybody watches CNN, MSNBC, FOX, or they
read Time or Newsweek, or watch their local broadcast or cable news
affiliate, or listen to the news on the radio, or read daily or weekly
newspapers. Even most basic cable customers pay rates and get CNN, et al.

There's a war going on. As such, there has been no dramatic reduction in
news viewership or readership other than the fact that people read the news
on the internet more frequently now. http://www.cnn.com,
http://www.abcnews.com. ....they're popular news sites that draw a lot of
money from advertising revenue.

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...

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.


They're not doing very good jobs.



If he/she misses a
deadline it is likely to cost the publication money and the editor his
job.


Getting it wrong consistently and losing readers as a result tends to cost
the publication money as well.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message news:Zs5yc.42

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

Of those things you listed that they ostensibly teach in journalism
schools,
evidently logic and critical thinking are not on the list.

Ad hominum noted. I will not engage in that sort of discussion on this
newsgroup. If you don't like the way the media works, start your own
publication. Until then, you might as well be some anti-aviation type
telling pilots how a planes fly. Like them, you simply do not know what
you're talking about.

I have a degree in journalism, I have worked in the journalism industry in
both civilian life and in the military, and I am also a pilot. I -am-
qualified to discuss these issues and I have no reason to accept personal
insults from somebody who has lesser experience.

I have no further interest in your opinion or discussion with you. The next
time you watch, read, or listen to the news, remember this: You did so
voluntarily.

-gattman