Media coverages, past and present....

mickeyrat
mickeyrat Posts: 44,798
edited April 2013 in A Moving Train
maybe I'm living in a dreamworld, but it seems to me there was a more measured tone and response in the past as news was reported. Yeah, getting the scoop was important but not at the expense of inaccurate reporting.

Personally I'd prefer you get the shit right rather than rush to be first. Frankly it leads me to distrust what used to be a seemingly trustworthy institution.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Guitar92player
    Guitar92player Posts: 664
    Amen to that!!


    False and inaccurate reporting is what leads to all these stupid conspiracy theories.
    ~Carter~

    You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
    or you can come to terms and realize
    you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
    makes much more sense to live in the present tense     - Present Tense
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,605
    I think Twitter has a lot to do with it. There was one example on Monday of a reporter tweeting something inaccurate and then correcting it twenty minutes later. The incorrect tweet was retweeted 20 times, the corrected one not at all.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,798
    JimmyV wrote:
    I think Twitter has a lot to do with it. There was one example on Monday of a reporter tweeting something inaccurate and then correcting it twenty minutes later. The incorrect tweet was retweeted 20 times, the corrected one not at all.
    this leads to another observation,


    should traditional news gathering/reporting organizations be gathering news from social media sites?
    It doesnt seem to me to be easily verifiable.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • LloydXmas
    LloydXmas Posts: 7,539
    Reporters and journalists have gotten lazy.
  • mookeywrench
    mookeywrench Posts: 6,081
    The media trys too hard to oversensationalize everything for ratings.
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,674
    I'm not sure most mainstream news sources are any more or less accurate now than in the past.

    "Dewey Defeats Truman!" the Chicago Tribune reported on November 3, 1948.

    "Don't believe half of what you see and none of what you hear" Lou Reed wrote in in the lyrics to "Last Great American Whale" in 1988.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,605
    mickeyrat wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:
    I think Twitter has a lot to do with it. There was one example on Monday of a reporter tweeting something inaccurate and then correcting it twenty minutes later. The incorrect tweet was retweeted 20 times, the corrected one not at all.
    this leads to another observation,


    should traditional news gathering/reporting organizations be gathering news from social media sites?
    It doesnt seem to me to be easily verifiable.

    No they shouldn't. But the last few days have shown us they do.

    I will forever be curious about the reports on Wednesday that a suspect was in custody and the pictures the NY Post printed on Thursday. Were there sources for these reports who gave false information, deliberately or inadvertently? Or were these reporters hoping to trump their competitors by inventing sources that never existed to corroborate stories they believed to be true?
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."

Categories