Poynter Online
Go


Top Story

Public TV, Radio Stations to Increase Local Investigative Coverage
Most Recent Articles
1.Poynter announces publication of a new collection of newspaper pages
9:00 AM Nov. 21, 2009
2.Poynter's Times Publishing Co. sells Governing
5:15 PM Nov. 20, 2009
3.Recommendation for Fewer PAP Screens Sure to Set Off Controversy
10:32 AM Nov. 20, 2009
4.Gene Patterson to Jack Nelson: Save Us a Desk Up There in That Celestial Newsroom
7:03 AM Nov. 20, 2009
5.Public TV, Radio Stations to Increase Local Investigative Coverage
6:19 AM Nov. 20, 2009
Most E-mailed
Recent Comments
Recent Tags
Community Activity

Poynter Training
Poynter Seminars
Small, in-person training experiences.
1.
A New Curriculum for a New Journalism - Jan. 6-8, 2010
Apply by November 23
2.
Multimedia Journalism for College Educators - February 1-5, 2010
Apply by December 14
3.
NewsU: Write Your Heart Out: The Craft of the Personal Essay - January 25-February 19, 2010
Apply by January 4
News University
Today's most popular courses on NewsU, Poynter's e-learning site for journalists.
Webinars
Our online classroom is just a click away. Learn more.
All Webinars

Poynter Forums

View Forum Post

Topic: Letters Sent to Romenesko
Date/Time: 8/17/2006 7:33:07 AM
Title: How do we stop the decline of TV journalism?
Posted By: Jim Romenesko
 
From BOB BATEMAN: Yesterday's story about a plane diverted to Logan, to which Fox and CNN devoted considerable air-time as it happened, raises a very serious question for which I haven't a clue about an answer. This is important, at least to me, because I happen to think that journalism is crucial to a democracy, but that what I witnessed yesterday was the antithesis of journalism. It was mere entertainment, masquerading as journalism, and it was mostly wrong.

Now I am the first to note that in the military we know all about the phenomena of "initial reports" and how they are often wrong. Indeed, I've noted how this occurs (within the military) in letters here in the past. But we don't broadcast "initial reports" all that often. When we do, we're often burned ourselves, which inhibits. But to my eyes yesterday was a nadir.

In the event, both news stations broadcast every single rumor, as the rumor arrived. Being on vacation right now, I have access to television news in the middle of the day, and the time to waste on "developing" stories. In this case, initial reports broadcast on Fox (my parents station-of-choice, I am just a guest) included breatheless assertions that "it is being reported" that two men are in custody, or that the woman had "prohibited items and a note about al Queda" on her person, the items were later excitedly reported as "vaseline, matches, a screwdriver and a notebook with information about Al Queda" until, finally, they reported the first version of what appears to be the facts, that it was a woman, and she apparently freaked out w/ claustraphobia.

This inclination, to air every version of every rumor, seems to be a bad thing. In polling my own family last night several hours later, two family members (of six who had seen some of the news) were under the impression that it was a terrorism-related event and were surprised to discover the later news.

My question: How do we end this? How do we stop the decline of television "journalism" (quotes deliberate) so that those making decisions no longer feel compelled to broadcast each rumor but instead have the courage to take the time needed to gather the facts, discern truth from rumor, and THEN go on the air? I ask because what we got in this case, was tripe. If the "news" was this innacurate, yet still made it on the air, why should anyone believe anything they hear now? (Note: Much the same applies to the online news outlets, and least print-journalists feel that they're off the hook, one of the first bad rumors aired by Fox came from the AP wires.) [Permalink]

View Complete Forum Topic

Username
Password
New User? Signup Now
Poynter Careers
See All Jobs
Add Your Resume
Post Your Job
Become a Member
More media jobs