How news reporting works

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.