spj-shield

SPJ Approves New Code of Ethics

The Society of Professional Journalists approved a new Code of Ethics at the Excellence in Journalism 2014 convention in Nashville Saturday afternoon.

SPJ’s code of ethics attempts to speak to all media, and all who consider themselves to be journalists:

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that democracy, a just society and good government require an informed public. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity.

The Society declares these four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism and encourages their use in its practice by all people in all media.

The newly approved code attempts to address using anonymous sources in stories:

Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.

Question sources’ motives before promising anonymity, reserving it for those who may face danger, retribution or other harm. Do not grant anonymity merely as license to criticize. Pursue alternative sources before granting anonymity. Explain why anonymity was granted.

Some members wanted the new code to urge journalists to directly link to sources they reference online, the committee rejected that idea, saying it was a good idea to link to original sources but it was not imperative in every circumstance.  The new code says:

Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.

Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.

The new code takes a harder line against paying for interviews compared the the previous code. The previous code said, journalists should “avoid bidding for news.”  The new code say s”do not pay for access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not.” 

The new code also takes a dim view of undercover tactics:

Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.

The proposed new code also said, “Be cautious about reporting suicides that do not involve a public person or a public place,” but late Friday, committee members removed that line and would write an expanded guideline for journalists urging them to be careful when reporting on suicides but to not ignore such a significant issue. SPJ has already produced “position papers” on a number of other ethics issues.

I asked SPJ Ethics Chairman Kevin Smith if he thinks ethics codes even matter anymore.

After the vote Saturday, Smith said, “This was a long and arduous process that took a lot of thought and deliberation.”  Smith said he was “proud of the people who worked on this new code and proud of SPJ for accepting it.”

At the same convention that SPJ adopted its new code of ethics, the Radio and Television Digital News Association unveiled its proposed new code of ethics. Ethics committee chairman Scott Libin says the new code is RTNDA’s first ethics code update since 2000. The proposed code, which will likely be voted on in 2015. Here are some of the passages:

  • The facts should get in the way of a good story.  Journalism requires more than merely reporting remarks, claims or comments.  Journalism verifies, provides relevant context, tells the rest of the story and acknowledges the absence of important additional information.  Many things that are technically “true” are incomplete, out of context or otherwise misleading.  Journalism’s standard of accuracy is higher than that.

  • There are not two sides to every story; for every story of significance, there are more than two sides.  While they may not all fit into every account, responsible reporting is clear about what it omits, as well as what it includes.

  • Scarce resources, deadline pressure and cutthroat competition do not excuse cutting corners factually or oversimplifying complex issues.  “Trending,” “going viral” or “exploding on social media” may increase urgency, but these phenomena only heighten the need for strict standards of accuracy.

  • Facts change over time.  Responsible reporting includes updating stories and amending archival versions to make them more accurate and to avoid misinforming those who, through search, stumble upon outdated material.

Libin explained to Poynter.org what the committee was aiming for:

The SPJ and RTDNA codes are similar, both focusing on accuracy, accountability and independence. I asked Libin if he foresees a day when all of the organizations could come together with one unified code that all people practicing journalism in all forms could follow.

The RTDNA proposed code includes language that both encourages journalists to tackle unpopular, even controversial topics, while encouraging journalists to be sensitive, not just in how they report, but how they gather the story:

  • Responsible reporting means considering the consequences of both the newsgathering – even if the information is never made public – and of the material’s potential dissemination.  Certain stakeholders deserve special consideration; these include children, victims, vulnerable adults and others inexperienced with American media.

  • Preserving privacy and protecting the right to a free trial are not the primary mission of journalism; still, these critical concerns deserve consideration and to be balanced against the importance or urgency of reporting.

  • The right to broadcast, publish or otherwise share information does not mean it is always right to do so.  However, journalism’s obligation is to pursue truth and report, not withhold it.  Shying away from difficult cases is not necessarily more ethical than taking on the challenge of reporting them. Leaving tough or sensitive stories to the rumor mill, the blogosphere and social media can be a disservice to the public.

Read more
Tools:
2 Comments

Tuesday, Aug. 12, 2014

If you must unpublish, here’s how to maintain credibility

Gawker

Gawker notes that BuzzFeed has unpublished more than 4,000 articles recently, disappearing posts on the 8-year-old company’s website. Editors at news websites usually take articles down with great reluctance, because doing so undermines public confidence in your newsroom’s work. Why would anyone trust what you say today if you routinely take down pages that you can no longer stand behind?

RELATED: Fairness and credibility guidelines for unpublishing online content

Still, there are rare occasions when taking down a post is the best option. Here are some best practices:

  • Keep a blank page up, rather than making the entire URL disappear or redirecting to a homepage without note.
  • Leave the tags and searchable information, so folks can find what’s left behind and know for certain the information is no longer valid.
  • On that blank page, insert a precisely worded explanation from editors describing why the material had to be removed. Was it entirely untrue? Inappropriately attributed? Obscene? Telling people why allows the audience to discern your editorial standards.
  • If the item was inaccurate, do your best to redirect the audience to accurate information.
  • If the item was accurate, yet inappropriately harmful to an individual, (this happens to college news sites all the time) explain what your news organization’s threshold is for making such a decision.
  • Direct readers to an online copy of your code of ethics or editorial standards.
  • Remove entire articles only as a last resort. If it can be fixed or attributed, you owe your audience that first.

I stop short of telling editors they should never unpublish information. Taking articles down is a rare phenomenon among trustworthy institutions, and it should be executed in the full light of day.  If you have editorial standards for publishing information, you might as well have standards that guide you through the decision to take it down. Read more

Tools:
0 Comments

Friday, June 20, 2014

Julia Dahl explores the tabloid world in her first novel

Julia Dahl’s first novel, “Invisible City,” is about a tabloid reporter in New York City covering the murder of a Hasidic woman. The novel, which came out in May, is fiction, but Dahl, a reporter for CBSNews.com, had some similar experiences of her own to tap. She spoke with Poynter about the book, writing for tabloids and covering closed communities.

Julia Dahl, photo by Chasi Annexy

So just to start with, tell me about your book and what inspired you to write a novel?

I’ve worked in journalism since graduating from college but I’ve always written fiction, as well. I wrote a novel in my 20s, but it was pretty bad and never got published. I started writing “Invisible City” right after getting a job as a freelance reporter at the New York Post in 2007. I wanted to explore how fraught tabloid reporting can be, especially for a young, relatively untrained journalist. I also realized that the books I really enjoyed were murder mysteries, so I thought I should try to write one.

Right about the same time, my husband and I moved into a new apartment – and the broker told us that the previous tenant had committed suicide there. I did a little digging (I’m a reporter, after all!) and found out that he was ultra-Orthodox, from Borough Park, and had been shunned because he was gay. I started collecting – but not opening – his mail, and began a kind of imaginary relationship with him.

Soon after that, the Post sent me to Borough Park to cover the suicide of a young groom who killed himself just after his wedding. I am Jewish, but Reform, and I just couldn’t stop thinking about this world of Jews living so differently from how I lived. So I started to write!

I’m assuming some of “Invisible City” is based on what you’ve learned or seen as a reporter. Is that correct?

The plot – the murder and its aftermath – are 100 percent fiction. But yes, my experiences as a reporter, especially at the Post, definitely informed the creation of the narrator, Rebekah Roberts.

What are the journalism lessons (that sounds weird, but you know what I mean) in the book?

I think the book poses hard questions about how tabloids work: the fact “runners” go gather facts and “re-write” people in the office write the stories; that “sexy” stories about celebrities take precedent over “ordinary” injustices. The narrator, Rebekah, makes a lot of mistakes trying to please her editors and sources. As the book progresses, she goes from having no sense of ownership over the stories she covers, to taking responsibility for how she does her job and the very real consequences for the people she writes about.

This book is about an ultra-Orthodox community. Have you covered other communities that tend to be insular?

I’ve done a few stories about police and the military, and those communities tend to be as closed as the ultra-Orthodox. There are different rules and a sense that outsiders don’t understand why they do what they do.

Best tips for getting inside as a reporter?

Start outside and work your way in. Talk to people who have left the fold, so to speak, and learn what you can from them. Then, once you’ve established trust, ask to be introduced to people inside the community. Read more

Tools:
0 Comments

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Two students comfort each other during a candlelight vigil held to honor the victims of Friday night's mass shooting on Saturday, May 24, 2014, in Isla Vista, Calif. Sheriff's officials say Elliot Rodger, 22, went on a rampage near the University of California, Santa Barbara, stabbing three people to death at his apartment before shooting and killing three more in a crime spree through a nearby neighborhood. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

The right way to publish a killer’s deranged manifesto

There’s a democratic value to publishing and referencing Elliot Rodger’s manifesto. The 22-year-old mass murderer left us a 141-page window into his deranged thinking.

But don’t just publish it, add context. Perhaps the most valuable thing journalists can do would be to get psychiatrists and psychologists to annotate the document. (Though perhaps you wouldn’t want to annotate it like this.)

Art Caplan, head of the bioethics division at NYU’s Langone Medical Center, advocates the same approach when considering the publication of medical research produced by Nazi doctors. By explaining the flaws behind information, we contribute to an improving body of knowledge while neutralizing the potential of perpetuating harm.

“Make it clear this is the raving of a devious and delusional mind,” Caplan said of Rodger’s manifesto. “Help us understand what compels someone to be so hateful and mysogonistic.”

Also, help the audience see what hate and misogyny really look like. You can do that the way the New York Post did, by labeling the killer’s ravings as those of a lunatic. Or you can point out the many places misogynists turn to reinforce their hate, the way the Soraya Nadia McDonald did for The Washington Post in this piece.

Journalists who repeat the names of childhood acquaintances that Rodger faulted for his personal misery have a particular responsibility to counteract that blame in their reporting.

When we leave out the additional context that would condemn Rodger’s logic, we run the risk of legitimizing his rationale. It seems ludicrous, until you consider the fact that misogyny is the root of many crimes.

Journalists asked similar questions when The Washington Post and The New York Times, at the request of the FBI, published the Unabomber’s manifesto in 1995, hoping that someone might be able to identify him (which worked.) That 35,000-word screed against technology, equality, and progressive causes remains available today. Read more

Tools:
4 Comments

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. attends Marina Abramovic's "The Artist is Present" exhibition closing party hosted by Givenchy at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, Tuesday, June 1, 2010. (AP Photo/Charles Sykes

The New York Times owes the audience an explanation

Jill Abramson’s departure as the executive editor of The New York Times and Dean Baquet’s appointment as her replacement was abrupt.

Times Company Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. told senior editors at a 2 p.m. meeting and the rest of the staff and the world found out around 2:30 p.m.

Abramson had been in the position since 2011, a relatively short time. She won’t stick around for the transition. For now, Times leadership is not answering the question: What happened?

The Times’ own story was cryptic. Reporter Ravi Somaiya wrote, “The reasons for the switch were not immediately clear.” In a later version he wrote that Sulzberger declined to directly address the question he said was “’on all of your minds’ – the reason for the sudden switch. Citing newsroom management, he said it was not about the journalism, the direction of the newsroom or the relationship between the newsroom and business sides of the paper.”

Capital New York reported it this way: “And that’s all I’m going to say about it,” said Sulzberger, according to two sources who were present. “It was an issue of newsroom management.”

That answer isn’t just frustrating to journalists. It’s dismissive of the audience with whom the Times presumes a relationship of trust.

Poynter’s leadership expert, Senior Faculty Jill Geisler, explained that management is often in a difficult position when going through an unexpected and unpleasant parting of ways. But if Abramson was fired, that should be said out loud.

“When personnel changes are made, employers balance two competing responsibilities: employee privacy and customer interest,” Geisler said. “Because The New York Times is at the epicenter of journalism, and aggressively covers changes at the top in other industries, it should aim for maximum transparency in sharing the story behind this apparently swift and surprising move. To do less leaves the door open to speculation ranging from a personal life decision to under performance to palace coup.”

Transparency is important in a trust relationship, especially when something unexpected happens. Transparency is increasingly important for news organizations, because the audience is constantly asking, “Why should I trust you?”

The details will certainly creep out. It’s just a question of whether Gawker, BuzzFeed or The Huffington Post will get them first. Given that reality, it doesn’t make sense for the Times to sit back and concede the story to its competitors.

But even if the details weren’t likely to leak out, hypocrisy can taint a newsroom’s brand. Certainly if this were another private company where there is significant public scrutiny, Times reporters would be aggressively working sources to get the details. Journalists are often counseled to expect the same scrutiny of their lives that they provide to the lives of others. News companies should abide by the same advice.

“The New Ethics of Journalism: Principles for the 21st Century” is now available. The book is a compilation of essays and case studies edited by Kelly McBride and Tom Rosenstiel, with a foreword by Bob Steele, for use in newsrooms, classrooms and other settings dedicated to a marketplace of ideas that serves democracyYou can find more information about the book here. Read more

Tools:
2 Comments

Thursday, Mar. 13, 2014

Twitter Inc in internet broser address bar_depositphotos

BuzzFeed reporter’s use of tweets stirs controversy

BuzzFeed’s Jessica Testa noticed a unique thread on her Twitter timeline Wednesday. Twitter user @steenfox asked her followers who were rape survivors to share what they were wearing when they were attacked. The results were rather spectacular. Some were in college when they were assaulted. Others were children. The precise details of their memories – pink pajamas, or peep-toe flats – provided a window into the insidious nature of rape.

Seeing an opportunity to tell an interesting story, Testa asked some of those same Twitter users for their permission to aggregate the tweets, then organized them by themes, drawing out the trends, adding her observations and sprinkling in some statistics about sexual assault. The result was this BuzzFeed news item that went up Wednesday evening.

It was an effective device to counter many of the myths about rape. Read more

Tools:
117 Comments

Wednesday, Mar. 05, 2014

Joe Paterno, Mike McQueary, Matt McGloin

ESPN reports Mike McQueary was sexually assaulted, but says little else

In this photo taken Sept. 24, 2011, then-Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno, left, talks with quarterback Matt McGloin (11) as assistant coach Mike McQueary listens on the sidelines during an NCAA college football game against Eastern Michigan in State College, Pa. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar)

Editor’s note: This column was revised and updated to include ESPN The Magazine Editor Chad Millman’s response to our emailed questions about the process behind the story.

ESPN The Magazine just published a long read about Mike McQueary, the man who witnessed Jerry Sandusky sexually assaulting a child in the Penn State locker room. The man who cost Joe Paterno his job and his legacy.

The story appears under the headline “The Whistleblower’s Last Stand” and describes widespread distrust of the former assistant coach and a life diminished since Sandusky’s indictment in the fall of 2011. But all anyone is talking about is this line near the top of the story:

“Finally, McQueary confided in his players something he hoped would make them understand how he’d reacted at the time. He told them he could relate to the fear and helplessness felt by the boy in the shower because he too was sexually abused as a boy.”

The story tops 5,000 words and never returns to that assertion, which is attributed to anonymous sources who were present for the conversation and anonymous sources who heard about the conversation from people who were there. The writer doesn’t say if McQueary reported his own abuse to authorities, if anyone was prosecuted, how old McQueary was, if anyone from his inner circle knew about the abuse before then, if McQueary has sought counseling, or what McQueary’s relationship to that abuser was.

Yet it’s clear from the video that accompanies the story that writer Don Van Natta Jr. and others at the Worldwide Leader in Sports understand the most compelling item in the story is the revelation of childhood sexual abuse. What’s not clear is what reporting attempts were made to bring more context to that information.

ESPN The Magazine Editor Chad Millman wrote this in response to our questions about how decisions were made:

“We recognize the extremely sensitive nature of this topic and had extensive discussions about our approach in advance of publishing. Ultimately, Mike McQueary’s revelation to a number of people is a relevant piece of information in a thoroughly-reported story. Mike McQueary was aware that we had been told the details of his revelation. Given that he is a central figure in the upcoming trial of Penn State officials and his own whistleblower lawsuit, a big focus is on what he saw, what he said and who he said it to. As a result, we carefully considered that if he was a victim of sexual abuse, that may have affected how he processed what he saw and what his reaction and statements were in the aftermath.”

Most newsrooms have a policy of protecting the identity of sexual assault victims. They do this because sexual assault is the single most under-reported felony and those who have been sexually assaulted generally incur a lasting stigma from the crime.

Millman wrote in his email that ESPN’s policy is to protect victims in a criminal case, but when reporting on a sexual assault that is not the subject of a criminal investigation or trial, to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.  Here’s his full response:

“We weigh each circumstance on a case-by-case basis, and if after careful review a story meets our standards for reporting, there are civil or criminal implications and/or the story has a higher editorial imperative, we may disclose names in those circumstances. When there are situations of criminal sexual assault/rape cases, per our Editorial Standards & Practices, we generally don’t report the names of accusers, unless the accuser personally decides to make his/her name public.”

When a newsroom does identify a survivor, editors usually explain why they are making an exception to their policy.

This magazine story carries no such explanation. Nor does the story explain why this fact is revealed, how it is relevant to McQueary’s story, or if the writer made any attempts to determine further context about the assault. In a related story, ESPN said it asked McQueary for comment on the magazine story, but he declined, other than to say he loved his mentor, Joe Paterno.

Millman’s email explains why ESPN felt McQueary’s revelation to his players was fodder for the article. But he doesn’t go into the reporting process around McQueary’s revelation.

Here’s a set of questions that might surface a few alternatives:

  • When you told McQueary that you are going to publish that he was sexually assaulted, would he talk about it, even off-the-record?
  • Did anyone else in McQueary’s inner circle have further information that would shed light on how the assault influenced him through the Sandusky investigation?
  • Have you talked to a counselor who works with male survivors? What light can that expert shed on the potential harm that outing him as a survivor might cause?
  • A large part of the story deals with allegations that McQueary had a gambling problem. Several sources said he wasn’t trustworthy. How do you intend for readers to digest this? Might they conclude that the claim of sexual abuse is fake?
  • The theme for this issue is “The Conspiracy Issue.” Does running this story under that theme suggest a bias toward believing or not believing McQueary?
  • What is the journalistic purpose of this story and how does revealing McQueary’s past sexual assault support that purpose?
  • Are you treating him different because he is a man? Would you treat a female survivor in a similar situation the same way?

I ask this last question because I’ve counseled newsrooms covering male survivors and it doesn’t always occur to decision-makers that the reasons we grant women survivors anonymity are valid for men, too.

These questions encourage a process. There is a well-established standard that guides how sexual assault victims are identified. While some newsrooms have an exception to granting anonymity when an accuser sues an assailant in civil court, I’ve never encountered a newsroom that specifically restricts the policy of anonymity to victims in a criminal investigation. The threshold for identifying someone as a sexual assault survivor against his or her wishes should be exceedingly high.

To clear that threshold, the story itself should have great journalistic significance to the audience. And the fact of the assault should be clearly relevant to the story.

Millman argues this story clears that threshold. I’m still not convinced. In the story that’s been published, there’s not enough reporting about that abuse to give the audience an adequate context. Is there reason to doubt McQueary’s truthfulness about the abuse? There’s no reporting that supports or undermines his claim. The writer could have at the very least revealed McQueary’s reaction and McQueary’s father’s reaction, when they learned that ESPN was going to publish the story of the abuse.

Finally, an editor could have explained ESPN’s practice on identifying sexual assault victims and how this story fits into that policy.

For more resources about covering sexual assault, see our NewsU course, Covering Sexual Assault.

Kelly McBride served as the lead writer for the Poynter Review Project in 2011-2012, in which the Institute provided ombudsman services to ESPN. She and her partner Jason Fry were critical of ESPN’s initial coverage of the Jerry Sandusky indictment. Read more

Tools:
11 Comments

Tuesday, Mar. 04, 2014

duke_AP

Outed Duke student presents lesson in crowd behavior

There’s been a relatively slow burn on the story of a female Duke University freshman outed as a porn star by a frat boy during rush.

The rumor first circulated through Duke’s campus in late January, after a frat boy discovered one of his classmates in a porn video, promised to keep her secret and then outed her during a rush party. On Valentine’s Day, the student newspaper published a smart, in-depth story on the woman, including lengthy answers to an interviewer’s questions. The paper used a pseudonym, Lauren, to identify her.

In the ensuing two weeks, anonymous participants on sites like CollegiateACB  revealed the woman’s name, her hometown, her dad’s profession and his work telephone number. Read more

Tools:
1 Comment

Friday, Feb. 28, 2014

SXSW2014_Logo_Platinum_CMYK1 100x100

Poynter at SXSW: Algorithms, Journalism and Democracy

Editor’s Note: Poynter will be at South by Southwest, the annual music, movie and interactive festival, March 7-16, in Austin, Texas. Look for our Poynter faculty members, Roy Peter Clark, Ellyn Angelotti and Kelly McBride, and digital media reporter Sam Kirkland. Here is the third in a series of posts on what we’ll be doing at SXSW.

Algorithms control the marketplace of ideas. They grant power to certain information as it flies through the digital space and take power away from other information. Algorithms control who sees what on social-media sites such as Facebook and YouTube, through search engines such as Google and Bing, and even in defined news spaces such as The New York Times, with its lists of most-shared and most-commented features, and Yahoo News.

Just ask some poor guy who’s tried to get his old DUI photo removed from a scurrilous mug-shot site. Having your old mug shot out there in the ether isn’t so bad, except when it turns up on the first page of a Google search for your name. That mug-shot sites were able to make a killing by charging to remove information is a testament to the power of algorithms. That Google and other search engines were able to penalize mug-shot sites (after The New York Times and other news organizations drew attention to the scummy practice) is a testament to the mysterious power of the people who control the algorithms.

This used to be the job of editors, whom we described as gatekeepers. Those editors were flawed human beings, biased by their own perspectives. And it was hard to hold them accountable because their process for making decisions was a private one.

But algorithms are by their very nature biased, meant to give priority to some information and de-emphasize other information. And it’s even harder to determine the biases of an algorithm than it is to determine the biases of a human editor.

If you’re concerned with democracy, you’re in favor of holding algorithms accountable for their impact on the marketplace of ideas.

Nicholas Diakopoulos argues in a paper issued this month for the Tow Center for Digital Journalism that journalists are the natural check on powerful algorithms. His report is aptly titled Algorithmic Accountability Reporting: On the Investigation of Black Boxes.

How can journalists demystify algorithms? First by observing and describing how certain algorithms are working. Then by questioning the assumptions. And finally by reverse-engineering those algorithms to force more transparency into the system.

Diakopoulos offers a methodology for doing so, which includes isolating the algorithm, testing it with a valid sample, talking to sources, and then revealing newsworthy findings. His process requires a certain base of knowledge and familiarity with how algorithms work. But one need not be a computer programmer to do this work — the report cites several examples of such journalism and describes how the reporters arrived at their conclusions.

This method very much follows the scientific method, Diakopoulos writes. I would argue that certain communities and audiences could be enlisted to help with the work.

Deciphering algorithms is more than just determining how they work. It’s also describing why certain information or information providers are so much better at optimizing certain algorithms. For instance, Upworthy got really good at the Facebook algorithm late last year. Then Facebook changed its algorithm, apparently de-emphasizing Upworthy because it doesn’t create original content. As a result, another site, Mental Floss, saw a huge benefit.

Describing what’s happening in algorithms is a critical function of journalism. Why is this type of informed analysis crucial to democracy?

  • It informs citizens and makes them more literate. The more people know about why they organically get certain information and have to hunt for other information, they more they know what to hunt for.
  • It holds the powerful accountable. Most private companies are never going to reveal what values they prioritize. But helping citizens decipher the apparent values gives them the power to pressure companies to be honest brokers.
  • It levels the playing field, sharing information held by a few with the masses.

Betaworks’ Chief Data Scientist Gilad Lotan and I will team up for a SXSW session exploring Algorithms, Journalism and Democracy on Sunday, March 9, at 6 p.m. ET (5 p.m. CT), at SXSW in Austin, Texas.

Related: Poynter at SXSW: The ins and outs of Twibel | Poynter at SXSW: Welcome back to the WED dance Read more

Tools:
1 Comment

Friday, Feb. 14, 2014

Crime scene

Hyperbolic to sensitive, how news outlets treated dramatic car crash video

The 55-second cell-phone video of an SUV going the wrong way on the Interstate, smashing into a sedan and exploding into a fiery ball that killed five people quickly sky-rocketed to one of the most viewed videos ever on the Tampa Bay Times’ website. It’s also a case study to examine how different newsrooms treat difficult content.

The Tampa Bay Times, which Poynter owns, ran the whole video, unedited, along with the sound. The Tampa Tribune ran the video without the sound. WTSP and WFLA used small portions of the video in a package, but then stopped using it, as did Fox 13. ABC Action News used a tight clip of the video in two packages. Bay News 9 ran the video but truncated it before the crash. Read more

Tools:
1 Comment