Whenever a big story breaks, I find myself hitting the computer pronto. For some reason when the newscasts are dancing around the information they have by not naming names of victims or whatever, the internet sources seem to be more forthright.
As far as getting the stories right, you sometimes just have to wait for the worst of an event to be over before all the info is gathered and presented with true accuracy. I think the reporters are trying their best to give us the info as it comes in and they want to be the first with the big news and it sometimes leads to inaccuracies, but the reporters are human and the adrenaline of a big story can get the best of them at times. I am pretty satisfied that our news resources are doing a good job.

A story such as the one in queston is of no interest to me. I dont read them anywhere, If errors were made in the first story, and later corrected, I would never know. I don’t read corrections to stories that I didn’t read in the first place.

Re other stories, There is wild abandonment of accuracy so that member of the media can get the story FIRST..

“Does it undermine confidence in the media?”

That statement implies confidence in the media as a starting point, and the MSM lost that a LONG time ago.

The list of MSM incompetence and malfeasance is too long to list here.

Members of the MSM too often dont care about the truth or facts, if a story sounds good and fits their world view, they run with it (Dan Rather forged memos). Other times they simply repeat unconfirmed or exaggerated stories (25,000 dead, rapes and murders in the Superdome). Other times, they simply make it up (Jason Blair). Other times, they simply ignore facts (Global warming peaked 10 years ago).

I’ll agree that the urge to get the first scoop on a breaking story leads to wild inaccuracies, much in the same way that your local gossip monger can take a story and twist the facts so badly that even the subject of the story would have a hard time recognizing it. In many cases–celebrity gossip, for example–who really cares?

I’m also aware that some news sources are slanted. They will either ignore a story or just tell you the parts that fit into their game plan. Again, much the way we common man-on-the-street folks tend to do.

So I depend on more than one source for important news. If everybody seems to have the same basic take on the scoop, it’s more likely to be close to truth. If it’s a really important subject, like global warming, I’ll go beyond the media and read the science by the experts, dry and boring thought it might be. If it’s a local story that might impact me, I’ll sure want to get the facts. But Tupac’s woes? I wouldn’t have read the initial story so any findings that it was a hoax would leave me yawning.

Basically my approach to news is to have more than one source.

I’d like to add that even reporters can be biased and filter a story through their own mindset and experiences. To complicate matters, eye-witnesses also interpret what occurred through their own personal viewpoint. Again, it’s human nature. For instance, let’s say two people are looking out their windows and see a child playing. Next thing they see is a big dog come along and knock the child down. They see the dog’s owner come out and grab the dog. Then they see the kid with blood running down his face. The child is whisked off to the emergency room and the two observers learn that the child had to have stitches to close a facial wound. Those are the facts of the story. But if the two people were interviewed they might have a totally different “take” on what happened. The first person might say, “That big vicious dog attacked the little boy and his parents had to rush him to the hospital for bite wounds. There was blood everywhere. That dog should be destroyed.” The second person might say, “That big doofus of a dog got loose again and knocked the kid down. The kid hit his head on the sidewalk and split his head open and had to be taken to the hospital for stitches. The dog just wanted to play but his owner needs to keep him confined.” Now two different reporters have two different stories. If it were the same reporter who interiviewed both witnesses, said reporter ought to follow up with the hospital to see what injuries the child was actually treated for. But if the reporter was going for the sensational…or if he himself had ever been attacked by a dog…he’ll just go with the “vicious dog” angle. After all, two people did see the dog knock the kid down and the kid did get hurt, right?

From the beginning of media, they have spread stories that later turn out to be false. If we’re lucky it doesn’t do too much harm - if not, then peoples lives are destroyed, fortunes can be lost – even wars started. But what’s the real problem? The same as it has been since we got our news over the back fence talking with our neighbors – Gossip.

There are literally hundreds of examples to choose from, but for illustration purposes, I will choose one. The 2006 Duke University Lacrosse Rape Case. The media picked up a police report – involving salacious and titillating details and reported it breathlessly. The media really loved this case – it had it all; class warfare, hints of racism, sex, violence, privilege – you could almost hear the drool hit the newsroom floors when this came over the wire. The relentless media focus destroyed these kids lives. Their faces were plastered everywhere, job offers disappeared, their team was suspended and they had to spend tons of their money to defend themselves. Meanwhile, the media allowed themselves to be exploited by an out of control prosecutor – all in the name of ratings. Eventually, of course, all allegations were proved to be completely false and the prosecutor was disbarred. But still, these kids get recognized, and reviled, because of a crime – that though reported worldwide – they Never committed.

The media? No consequences.

I would like to see a serious change in how the media is allowed to operate. I would ban media (print, online, or TV) from reporting Gossip. I would define Gossip as unproven allegations against a private individual. I don’t care how sensational the claims against a person are – it’s gossip until it’s proven. I don’t care how beautiful/famous/rich the person involved is – it’s gossip until it’s proven. And on the subject of proof – let’s hold reporters and media accountable when they fail to check their sources. Dan Rather should have lost his job for reporting the Killian documents as real – even a Cursory check would have revealed them to be hoaxes. But furthermore, CBS should have paid a fine for allowing unfounded GOSSIP to be Headline News.

In other words, when the media stops acting as the nattering neighborhood Gossip, and is held accountable for the False stories they rely on for ratings – then I will take them seriously again. Until then, I will do what I do now – take everything they say with Huge grain of salt.

My confidence in the media is shaky at best. I hate how the media beats stories into the ground and justifiesit by saying the stories are driven by people who want to know. Really, do I need to know what some pop singer is not wearing under her skirt? Then to avoid responsibility I hear “Don’t shoot the messenger”. In my opinion, regardless of the intentions of the street reporter, no story makes it into print unless an editor thinks it will make his company money. Facts are not important. Sell those newspapers, get those mouse clicks. You can always make a retraction later. The story about Tupac is an excellent example.

The only thing the LA times could do to make me have a lower opinion of their professionalism would be to have those flash-ads like “shoot the monkey, win a free Ipod” on the top of their page…tacky….oh wait, only the St. Louis post dispatch does that

Seriously though, I’ve worked in the media and It doesn’t suprise me. Papers try to get by with a skeleton crew filling their pages. This leads to: lack of fact checking, inclusion of non-news, no investigative journalism, pandering to public relations professionals.

There is no quicker way to write a story than to copy and paste some corporate public relations press release and slap your name on it. Is it accurate? Does anyone care? not really, but the plus side is that noone really cares because we’re all pretty good at taking what is reported from ad-supported sources with a grain of salt.

From a recent article by Eric Alterman in the New Yorker: I think he pretty much answers today’s question (whether you’re a liberal or conservative).

A recent study published by Sacred Heart University found that fewer than 20% of Americans said they could believe “all or most” media reporting, a figure that has fallen from more than 27% just 5 years ago. “Less than one in five believe what they read in print,” the 2007 “State of the News Media” report, issued by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, concluded. “CNN is not really more trusted than Fox, or ABC than NBC. The local paper is not viewed much differently than the New York Times.” Vastly more Americans believe in flying saucers and 9/11 conspiracy theories than believe in the notion of balanced—much less “objective”—mainstream news media. Nearly nine in ten Americans, according to the Sacred Heart study, say that the media consciously seek to influence public policies, though they disagree about whether the bias is liberal or conservative.

competition is something that turns us all into over reacting idiots. Reporting news storys are as competitive as a heavyweight championship title fights. People seem to forget that everything that they read are seen through the writers eyes. A lot of it is personal opinion along with facts. If you are interested in a story or event, you need to personally research the facts through several media post. The culture that this was written about stands to self distruct regardless of false or bad news story. They end up being a product of the music they write about.