Should Your Digital And Traditional Media Sites Be Singing From the Same Editorial Hymn Book?

Philip M. Stone January 13, 2011 Follow on Twitter

The very messy way that some reputable news organizations handled the Tucson shootings has brought into view that not all sections of an organization’s news operations keep to the same standards. ABC TV, for instance, did not falsely report that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords had died, but for about 10 minutes its abcnews.com did, quoting other news organizations.

So how come the standard at the TV news operation was higher than for the web site?  As far as those who read the web site headlines were concerned it was ABC reporting the death – no differentiating between the broadcast network and its web site. So it’s the ABC brand as a whole that got nailed.

Which probably means that one of the lessons to be learned is editorial governance in such situations. Do you go with a news report based on what other news organizations are saying, if the information comes from unofficial sources can they be unnamed or should they be named? Those running the ABC broadcast news operation correctly chose to wait; those running the Web site did not. Surely they both should be singing from the same editorial hymn book?

“Our mission is to get it right and accuracy is the most important thing,” ABC News President Ben Sherwood told journalists.  “For about 10 minutes, part of our organization, abcnews.com, put up a headline citing other sites, and we brought it down. It did not go out on our airwaves. How did that happen? It really hit me in the heart when I heard what that family went through; we have to make sure we’re one voice through the whole organization.”

That’s perhaps easier said than done, but at least ABC has now identified the problem and no doubt will be working on fixing it. Also, no doubt, other news organizations will be taking a look at how their different news groups adhere to the same editorial standards. There are simple rules that can be drafted for all to follow with perhaps the most important decision being whether to go with what others are saying before you can confirm the information yourself.

Watching the breaking news on CNN, it fell victim to the false National Public Radio (NPR) report that Rep. Giffords had died. The network gave full credit to NPR for that (editors have long believed that covers your ass –cya—but in reality it doesn’t for as far as the public is concerned they told friends that “CNN says…” not that “CNN, quoting Reuters quoting NPR says….”

CNN worked hard to get its own sourcing and it later “confirmed” the death from two  unnamed governmental sources  but a few minutes later it started saying there were unconfirmed reports she may not be dead but rather in surgery. It finally got hold of the hospital PR spokeswoman who confirmed the Congresswoman was in surgery, not dead, and finally we had it from someone official.

Which brings up that question of whether reputable news organizations should go with “reliable unnamed sources” confirming such information or whether the public isn’t better served by waiting for it to come officially from law enforcement, the hospital or other official source. It’s no use saying that there was more than one source – the usual fallback by news organizations – because two unnamed sources could just as easily have it wrong by relying themselves on the same source who had it wrong. But when you have a hospital PR department or a police officer who is part of the investigation giving out “official” information that is solid then isn’t the public better served by waiting?

Of course the news business is ultra-competitive and everyone is afraid of being beaten by others but whatever happened to that old edict, “Get it first but get it right.” NPR and ABC were among the very first to actually have news of the shooting, but then NPR – very well respected journalistically – said the Congresswoman was dead and because it is such a well respected organizations others went with that. Was being first really worth the later grief?

NPR Executive Editor Dick Meyer said it had the information from two different sources including one from the sheriff’s department. But both were wrong – so much for the two-source theory – and now it is NPR that is getting most of the blame for the huge foul-up. It’s amazing how a brand that has taken years to build up can be so shaken in a matter of minutes. Meyer indicates the lesson may have been learned –“in a situation so chaotic and changing so swiftly, we should have been more cautious” – but long-standing damage has been done.

But then again maybe NPR hasn’t learned the lesson for spokeswoman Anna Christopher has told the media, “NPR follows a basic two-source rule when reporting that someone has died. In this case, we followed the two-source rule, but the sources were not as optimal as desired. Also, we did not cite our sources. We’re not changing our policy, but we will reinforce best practices going forward.” It will be interesting to hear what those “best practices” should be – two sources willing to be named if there is no official source?

CNN said it went with its “confirmation” after hearing it from two government sources that had been reliable in the past. “We deeply regret the error,” the network said. But it begs the question for the next breaking news story of whether the network goes with “reliable sources” or just quotes others, or will it actually wait until the word is officially released.

People tend to remember the bad rather than the good so “Get it right” really seems to take precedence over “Get it first”. But the competitive pressures out there are such that based on previous performances on breaking news until the news organization gets it from official named sources we all had better be a bit leery of what is reported. And the very fact that something like that is said goes to show there really is a big problem out there that reputable news organizations need to deal with.

See also in ftm Knowledge...

Television News - Bright Lights, Big Coverage

The global reach of television news has never been greater. The digital age has expanded that reach to satellite channels and the Web but it has also forced television news to mature. This ftm Knowledge file shows the gains and the pains. 74 pages PDF (December 2010)

Order here