In today's world, technology allows everyone to participate as journalists. Well, we ask- what exactly does this mean for actual journalists? Do journalists rush to get the breaking story out immediately before taking the time to fact check their information? If they do get the facts wrong on social media, is this as big of a deal as getting the facts wrong in a print version?
"Crime coverage now requires constantly feeding the beast" discusses this exact dilemma today's journalists face. Today, there is an urgency to release breaking crime news to the public before someone else does.
Journalists today work by the minute instead of the story, and oftentimes, it's common for journalists to send out tweets and blogs without a read-over by an editor.
So what happens when the facts are wrong? Does the urgency of the story make these mistakes forgivable? What happens when all of the facts are wrong?
As the article mentioned, many facts related to initial tweets and stories about the Sandy Hook Elementary school shootings were wrong. The article "9 Things the Media Got Wrong about the Sandy Hook Shooting" explains how a lot of the initial information about the shooting was wrong, including how the shooter was initially misidentified as his brother.
What are the consequences of getting facts like this wrong on social media? How hard would it have been to check these facts before publishing what was probably just a rumor?
|from 9 Things the Media Got Wrong about the Sandy Hook Shooting|