The Uvalde media/murder horror show presents me with the opportunity for a case study in “the media,” a primer for non journalists.
First, “the media” is not a unified entity.
When you say, “The media does this, or the media does that,” just what “media” do you mean?
Fox News and The New York Times and CBS and Breitbart and the Wall Street Journal and MSNBC and The Atlantic and CNN and the Washington Post and NPR are all part of “the media,” but they are quite different. Chances are if you like the Journal, you won’t like the Times. If you like MSNBC, you won’t like Fox.
These outlets are quite different in their opinions, but their news reports should be very similar because news gatherers observe the same values. Here I am talking about news reporting, not opinion.
What values make something newsworthy?
There are different lists of news values, but here are the basics:
Proximity: The closer the event is, the more people interested in it. Example: A bus crash in India killing 30 has less news value than a car crash killing 4 on an Interstate near you.
Controversy: When there is conflict within the reported news. Example: When Joe Biden says inflation is “transitory,” or when Donald J. Trump claims the election was “stolen.”
Prominence: Things that happen to prominent people, such as celebrities, have intrinsic news value because people know who they are. Example: The Johnny Depp/Amber Heard defamation lawsuit.
Impact: The more people involved, the more important the topic. Example: the COVID-19 pandemic had the potential to affect everyone, while a recall of beef would affect only the people who bought that brand.
Bizarre: People are engaged by weird issues. Example: Man attacks alligator.
Human-Interest: Often not “news,” strictly speaking, but an event that engages people on an emotional level. Example: Person who returns a wallet with $5,000 in cash in it.
Timeliness: Something that just happened has more news value than something a week or more old. It is one reason news outlets rush to publish or broadcast.
Completeness: The story answers the 5 Ws and the H: Who, what, where, when, why and how. The “why” is the most difficult to learn.
Sometimes these elements overlap, and sometimes there are other variables, but this is the basic list.
Now that we have the base, where do we go from here?
Reporters know nothing. They are empty vessels.
Note the word: Reporter.
They “report.”
What do they report?
What they are told.
Who does the telling?
The people with access to the information.
Who are they?
The authorities, or others with access to information. These are called ”reliable sources,” because they have proved themselves over time. They are not called ”perfect sources.” No reporter will admit to citing ”unreliable sources.”
Information is not like rain. It does not fall from the sky. It must be collected.
What I am discussing here are breaking news stories, often crime.
I am not discussing, say, politics, or economics, or sports, where reporters can develop sources and can break stories on their own, through digging and enterprise.
Have some reporters been known to cheat and make shit up? Every profession has its bad applies and that happens occasionally and they usually are unmasked by other reporters.
That brings us to my case study of Uvalde.
What was the sequence of events in Uvalde?
The word goes out over police radio, or social media, that there has been a shooting at a school.
Reporters rush to the scene where they are put behind police barricades.
Until there is a news conference, they may glean some info from cops or medics or witnesses, some of whom have pieces, but none have the Big Picture.
Whether it is Uvalde,, or Buffalo, or Tulsa, the media assembles and prepares “the first draft of history,” as provided by the authorities. The first draft of history. Not the final draft.
For their part, the authorities are at the mercy of the first responders on the scene. Under the best of conditions, there is chaos, with various police units, teachers, children, parents, and medics running around.
In this case, someone decided to lie.
There was the law enforcement agent who “engaged” shooter Salvador Ramos.
That is what authorities were told. They accepted it in good faith and passed it along to reporters who reported it in good faith.
It was a lie.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott later fumed that he had been lied to.
How can you blame “the media” for “getting it wrong,” or apply the moronic phrase of “fake news” dreamed up by the most outrageous and unapologetic liar to ever occupy to White House?
Then there was the locked school door that was left open that turned into the door that was closed by a teacher, but failed to lock.
There was outrage when it was learned a platoon of cops were in the hallway outside the classroom, but didn’t break in, followed by — as new details were dug out as days passed — word that the incident commander ordered them to not enter because he thought it was a hostage situation. He thought that because 911 calls from children inside the classroom were not received by him, because he was not carrying his police radio.
School District Police Chief Pete Arrandondo first cooperated with authorities, then stopped, “the media” was told. He did not reply immediately, which gave legs to the story. He then repudiated the reports and said he was talking to the Texas Department of Public Safety. In each case, “the media” reported what each side was saying.
There’s a journalism adage that says there are three sides to every story: His side, your side, and the truth. It is simplistic, but warns reporters to speak to all sides.
Clearly, at Uvalde, there was a communications problem, but it was not “the media’s.”
Remember the O.J. Simpson trial, where public opinion changed from day to day as new details emerged?
Even the most-straightforward story is like an onion, with layers of skin. And the story can change with each layer.
Why don’t reporters wait for the correct information?
How long would that be? How would they know?
The press and authorities work on an unspoken agreement: Authorities will tell the truth, reporters will report it accurately.
Does that mean reporters are simply note-takers?
No, they are not automatons, or tape recorders inscribing everything they are told.
Once the information has been imparted, reporters are charged with evaluating and fact-checking it.
Under competitive pressures, that often can’t be done immediately. So they report what they were told, attribute it to authorities, that first draft of history.
If the info proves to be false or unreliable, they have their say the next day.
That is how stories are checked and changed. It is a dynamic process, one in motion.
There’s a term in computers: GIGO. That means Garbage In, Garbage Out. If you feed bad data in, you get a bad result. It’s the same with journalists.
As long as people are human, they will make mistakes. That goes for both authorities and reporters.
And until reporters are allowed to use lie detectors, sometimes they will print the lies they were told.
The good news is this: Over time, the truth almost always comes out.
HAPPY WEDNESDAY !!!
pallie,
Good job as always. My problem with the news media is that real journalism goes out the window when there is an emergency situation such as Uvalde. As you stated. A reporter gets their facts ( we hope ) from reliable sources, but I believe that more times than not, the corporation demands expediency rather than facts. As you said, “we’ll correct it later”.
Aside from the obvious glare, there are real live reporters that are allowed to do their job. Locally, Steve Keely is right up there.
Then there’s the T.V. commentators. Somebody decided a long time ago, to hire beautiful people. Our local channels do just that. Nationally, FOX wins hand down.
Tony
The motto is “get it first, but first get it right.”
Reporters report to editors NOT “corporations.” Please delete that misconception.
At Uvalde, everyone was getting the info at the same time, so enterprising reporters sought out “other” sources, meaning witnesses family members, etc.
Uvalde revealed what happens when the AUTHORITIES are wrong, or dishonest. But, as I said, the truth eventually comes out, sometimes just the next day.
And commentators are not news reporters and are not bound by the same values.
Always glad to hear from you. And first as usual.
strike CORPORATIONS
insert EDITORS
That’s more accurate.
Uvalde is a classic example of what the military calls ‘the fog of war.’ I.e., disparate reports were pulled together, and someone (an editor, usually) tried to make sense of what, in many cases, were reports that contradicted each other. The ‘reporter’ is just a talking head reading what is on the teleprompter. Another military term I love is, ‘The best battle plan falls apart with first contact with the enemy.’ Finally, I wish we in the USA would stop calling what we watch or hear ‘the news.’ The BBC does news. The USA’s outlets do propaganda — from the Left, the Right, and the Middle. Here is a humorous way the news can be reported as propaganda: the USA and Russia agree to a horse race. The USA horse wins, but the Russian newspapers report it this way: “The Russian horse finished second, but the American horse finished next to last.” In my more than eight decades of reading, listening, and watching news being reported, I have come to believe no one is telling us the truth.
The “fog of war” is an excellent analogy. If no one is telling the truth, why read newspapers or watch TV?
Stick to Twitter for facts. 🤪
You’re entitled to your opinion, Stu, but I think you are biased when you say
“How can you blame “the media” for “getting it wrong,” or apply the moronic phrase of “fake news” dreamed up by the most outrageous and unapologetic liar to ever occupy to White House?”
I think our current President has easily surpassed him in the lying department.
Stu, I’d also note that there is quite a bit of editorializing in the headlines of articles. I get it, if it bleeds, it leads. As an example, during covid, there was a story in my local paper with two equally true possibilities for headlines. One, “Covid cases over XXXX for second day in a row”. The other possibility, “Covid cases decreased by YYY from previous day’s total”. Guess which one was printed?
The urge for sensationalism is understandable, but it doesn’t do much for the industry’s reputation.
I find that over time, the truth eventually comes out. The sensationalism and get it first pushes most journalists. Like you said, if it bleeds it leads. Sadly it is true.
Excellent point. Glass half empty, glass half full are both true. But my focus was on news reporting — content, not headlines. And if the story reports both half full and half empty, it gets this 👍
That said, almost every news outlet is using the phrase “mass shooting” in their headlines to describe the recent South Street violence. Yes, mass casualties and deaths did occur. But really? It’s sensationalizing and misleading and falls squarely on those responsible for creating the story- not external sources or agencies.
“Mass shooting” is defined as 4 or more shot in a single incident. Most media follow it.
Excellent article. The scrambled first information we get on anything is almost always wrong, but those of us who have been, shall we say, “otherwise reliable” sources are under pressure to “feed something to the beast”. Yes, less than perfect system, but most of the time the facts will emerge temporarily. Of course there will always be those who are far more interested in their own point of view. “As scarce as the truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.”
I love that truth quote.