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.

For the most part, I don’t lend much credence to what major newspapers and other main stream media outlets put out. Given the years of low quality reporting from the LA Times, their getting hoxed doesn’t surprise me at all. What is a surprise though, and I give them a lot of credit for it, is that they quickly made the retraction and did so in an upfront and honest way. The LA Times, along with most other major papers, usually equivocate their retractions and clarifications if indeed they bother to give them at all.

Newspapers have been going the way of the dinosaur for years. Most intelligent consumers of news know you have to go elsewhere for credible and timely information.

Whatever fleeting confidence I had in the media was utterly destroyed by the almost completely uncritical reporting in late ‘02 and early ‘03 that helped, on some level, get us into the current Iraq debacle. That some newspaper wrote some silly and not-terribly-grounded-in-fact article about a couple of rappers is about as surprising or life-affecting as the sun rising in the east.

Global warming peaked 10 years ago? Thank goodness I don’t have to feel guilty anymore. (How come we didn’t hear about this earlier from the MSM? You would think Al Gore would be the first to tell us.)

I guess in that case we don’t need investigative reporting on the Green/Wind power that Ameren is soliciting donations toward. $15 a month for … a guilt-free concience? or for lining corporate pockets?

Ryan A,

Funny that you should mention the “green power” initiative that Ameren is pushing. They automatically enrolled me in that. I called to have it removed, and they were apologetic about it, immediately removing me from the program. The lady then explained that their system had glitched and enrolled loads of people. If I hadn’t been diligent about checking my bill, I never would have noticed – Ameren would have just been raking in the extra dough.

How about it Kurt, anyone want to look into a story on how the local utility company “accidentally” automatically enrolled tons of people into a dubious “green” program that essentially only grows corporate profits? Or is everyone too busy “covering” the latest Gossip involving a band director who may or may not have done something inappropriate?

The news often uses gossip as legitimate news. It can often take hours and sometimes days to get the real story.

I blame the fact that most news programs are now 90 minutes long. They have nothing but time to fill so they toss in whatever old thing they heard while in the bathroom or at the water cooler to fill in the open time. They will just retract it later if its wrong.

The problem is many people act on the first story they hear.
Right or wrong they react. Usually rather badly.

Some media outlets have always had other agenda than reporting news and facts. Witness the Yippies of years gone by getting scoops ten years ahead of the mainline media. They had way less resources and money, but they got the facts. Mainline media would deny what they reported (with a little nudging from the politicos), then ten years later report the same things, and take credit for “finding the facts”. I would love to see how the old gang would have handled Fox News and the Bush Boy Crew. We miss you Dana and Aron! For sure.
I notice most media now subscribes to the same news feeds, correct or not. One local main newspaper can’t even edit and proof their publication properly. Guess those jounalism degrees don’t mean what they used to. The Post-Dispatch is known by conservatives as a “liberal rag” and much worse. Yet, this paper supports many of the most conservative folks in town.
You can’t please everyone, but it seems it is getting easier and easier to plant stories to advance an agenda or two. Some folks prefer to have media agree with their prejudices than be truthful. Like JN said…YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!!
Watcha gonna do?
The retraction boxes tend to be WAY too smalll IMHO.

For stories about the entertainment industry, I usually go to perezhilton.com. He is usually very accurate and funny as well.

Historically the media was never a reliable source of information. It was only with the advent of television where actual on the scene film could accompany the story that the media gained a perceived integrity boost, i.e. Walter Cronkite and the eveing news. That has long since evaporated.

The ability to distinguish the “what so” from the “meaning”, and the sensationalism to sell from the responsibility to report will always plague the media. The media segments that do the best job of this distinction are sports and weather. I can clearly see the stats from the opinion.

The story might be interesting if the parties involved were remotely interesting…which they are not….so really…who cares?

“The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.”….Thomas Jefferson

Most media, most people, and most every facet of government, no one cares about what the truth is, but only would they want it to be.

Media reporters have gone the way of the carrier pigeons. That is best evidenced by stories about global warming. That is the epitome of fallacious, inaccurate, and grant driven reporting.
I have read thousands of articles on the subject, and have never seen one that I couldn’t]t refute off the top of my head.

Consensus, even if there was some, does not equate “Science” in any way. Remember, it was consensus that that “proved ” the Earth was flat?

Further, Ethanol is highly touted as being a way, to lessen dependence on foreign oil. The fact is that it “Increases” the need for foreign oil. It’s another Fraud perpetrated by writers.

Actually, there are many proven scientific studies that support global warning conclusions. That isn’t even up for dispute anymore except for those who have an agenda in earth destroying activities, or are extremely accepting of conservative dogma of any kind. The media has become a giant cluster-F of the same stories being sold and passed around. This newspaper has taken on some stories that gave them grief when they exposed local crooks, so there IS hope.

I have zero faith in the print media, including the PD. Today there was an apology from the PD editors for a similar “hoax.” When did journalists stop being journalists? Story after story in the PD does not answer questions or probe for facts. Not one so-called journalist even thought to question whether the uproar in the Kirkwood mayor’s race was political - meaning Democrat activists were involved in the controversy. Are you kidding me? It took me two seconds to figure out what was going on in Kirkwood.

I just read the redaction on the Easter Story (Pamala Brown/Virginia Gillis), and I have to say, it was very classy. Not only did the PD apologize for the errors (basically trusting, but not verifying) they went back and did good, solid research on the person who scammed them.

Everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone apologizes and tries to make it right. Good job PD.