Aug. 7, 2012
Aug. 7, 2012
Why is it important which reporter first reveals who Romney’s Vice Presidential pick will be? (Source: Michael Calderone/Huffington Post)
We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.
Moreover, the very article at the headline link not only does not make a claim that it is important, it has the following to say:
“While it doesn’t matter to the majority of Americans which reporter broke the news or got it minutes before others did, these scoops have currency among the political agenda-setters who Mark Halperin once dubbed the “Gang of 500,” the type of insiders who nowadays get birthday shoutouts on Mike Allen’s morning Playbook.
And yet, journalists — even those who’ve landed such scoops — say that which reporter broke them, and when, is primarily of interest to only a small group of people.
“It does not matter to the public that they hear about it as soon as possible,” said Ron Fournier, editor-in-chief of National Journal. “There’s nobody outside of 400 of us in Washington who remember Andrea Mitchell or John King got it.”
So, it is not important to the public; it is only important to beltway insiders; and Poynter indicates that it IS important.
it is NOT “important” at all. can anyone say exactly what was the actual benefit to those “breaking” vp news in the past? i can’t think of a single example.
© 2013 The Poynter Institute