BOSTON TRAGEDY SHOWS TRANSFORMATION OF NEWS REPORTING

JohnLandsberg
April 16th, 2013

The tragedy that occurred during the Boston Marathon dramatically points out how the reporting of “news” has changed in the Internet age.

It used to be that people could rely on newspapers for reliable information. That no longer is the case as pointed out dramatically Monday by the New York Post.

The Post is the nation’s 11th largest newspaper with a circulation larger than any paper in Boston, San Francisco, Kansas City, etc. Its circulation is just under 700,000.

On Monday afternoon the Post reported that 12 were dead in Boston. At the time other media outlets were reporting two dead (and later 3). The Post also said a Saudi Arabian national was a suspect. Boston officials say that is not true.

Virtually everything reported by the Post was either wrong or unproven. Here is an interesting take on how the newspaper has tried to justify its mistakes.

On Tuesday the paper noted, “The official death toll was three, but a law-enforcement source told The Post it could be as high as 12.”

The Post and newspapers in general have lost tremendous credibility over the years. Many people consider newspapers agenda-driven and staff cutbacks have severely hampered their reporting expertise.

When something occurs like the Boston bombings people now turn to TV (and some radio outlets) for instant news and social media outlets such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Photos and videos from the scene circled the globe almost instantaneously.

In Kansas City, noted blogger and Boston Marathon runner Greg Hall posted real-time updates from Boston via Twitter about what was occurring (and photos, below). Other KC runners also posted messages on Twitter and Facebook.

On the other hand, it should be pointed out that some people used social media to spread untruths about what was occurring. CNN has outlined five viral stories that came out of the Boston tragedy (LINK) and were totally bogus.

Overall, most of the news via social media was immediate—and accurate-depending on the source. No guessing. These were people directly involved in the ongoing crisis and sharing what was occurring. They had no real agenda other than to let people know what was happening to them. It was personal.

Ironically, TV and radio outlets now rely on social media for much of the information they provide. Hall was interviewed on sports talk shows and quoted on KC TV stations throughout the evening as were other KC participants.

Social media outlets used to be considered a joke by the mainstream media.

That certainly is not the case anymore.

 

7 Responses

  1. David Remley says:

    RUSH TO BE FIRST
    It’s the rush to be first. I don’t care who’s first, I only care who’s accurate.

  2. DC in PV says:

    NY POST A RAG
    Interesting points, but the New York Post is not the best example of print journalism to use as a comparison with online media. The Post has always been a rag, just a step or two above the National Inquirer. I lived in New York for eight years a while back and the idea of turning to the Post for anything other than hilarious, outrageous headlines (see your post of yesterday), lots and lots of photos (people who buy the Post don’t seem to care much for actual reading) and good sports coverage was laughable. It would be more useful to see how a respected newspaper, like the New York Times, handles news gathering at a time like this.

  3. Mike Throop says:

    COMPELLING READING
    The Boston Globe’s home page
    http://www.boston.com
    yesterday was a single photo and the site’s Twitter feed. That made for compelling reading of real time information.

  4. Nick says:

    ALL ABOUT EGO
    Social networking is probably 10% legitimate news, 90% fear mongering. As David Remley said, it’s a rush to be first. Facts be damned; as long as they broke the news to you first, however accurate it may be, that’s all that matters. This transformation in news reporting is not for the better, social networking or otherwise. It’s all about the ego.

  5. Pat Carlson says:

    TIGER WOODS HEADLINE
    With headlines like you highlighted yesterday, who would take the NY Post seriously?

  6. Mike Throop says:

    INFORMATION
    I disagree with the premise that information is overwhelmingly incorrect. Do you have data to prove that’s the case? Having online access is vital today, if for no other reason than people are not using conventional news sources, for the very reason you deride non-traditional sources. The false stuff gets filtered in a big hurry by peer pressure if for no other reason. Facebook and other sites are becoming the place to gather and share in emergencies:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2013/04/15/the-explosions-at-the-boston-marathon-and-the-facebook-huddle/

Leave a Reply