The culture of the news media is irreparably broken in 2012. With that basic premise out of the way, it's easy to see how such major mistakes in the field of "journalism" can continue to be made, despite our seemingly instant access to information. On a daily basis, someone in the media gets something wrong.
Chip Kelly is going to Tampa Bay. And then he isn't.
Les Miles is the next head coach of Penn State. But he's not.
Don't even get a Penn State fan started on the perceived inaccuracies the came in the wake of the initial Joe Paterno firing in November 2011.
But it's not a Penn State issue or a college football issue. It's a sports in general issue; it just so happens that Penn State was at the core of a recent, unforgivable drama in sports journalism. And it involves people you know.

Any piece of writing that seeks to hold those responsible for serious irresponsibility in journalism accountable for their actions must begin with a simple preface - these are still good men. These are peers, friends, and fellow sports fans that simply made a serious lapse in judgment. The two news outlets at the heart of this story have each issued apologies, with Onward State's Devon Edwards actually resigning from his post. They feel bad about what they've done. Unfortunately, that doesn't excuse what they've done.
The complex entanglement of today's news cycle and social media is a fickle beast. Much of the world's news is broken via a 140-character tweet, while analysis and follow-up via long form article happen later. From a Penn State standpoint, the news of every single commitment to the football recruiting Class of 2012 has been broken via Twitter. The same is almost certainly true at every other major football program.
And it's not just sports. Politicians, religious leaders, and pop culture icons routinely use social media to interact with fans and break news to audiences. The prototypical news media has been turned on its ear in the 21st century, and there isn't anything anyone can do about it.
As long as there is news to report, there will be inaccurate facts, false reports, and retractions. That's a simple fact that has been a part of media since the beginning, seen most famously in 1948 when the Chicago Tribune proclaimed New York Governor Thomas Dewey had bested actual winner Harry S. Truman in the 1948 Presidential election. Sixty-four years later, the media are still making mistakes with facts. But there is a big difference between wrongly proclaiming a President based on the reporting of an established Washington correspondent and announcing a man's death based on an email and a lying writer.
Fast forward to Saturday, January 21, 2012, where interested parties across the globe sat glued to their Twitter streams, eager to learn any more information after initial reports surfaced that Joe Paterno was in critical condition. Just after noon, I emailed a source to see if I could get any information on Joe's health, for both professional and personal reasons. There were rumors flying everywhere and I wanted to see if I could put some sense to what I was hearing.
Three hours later I first received word that Joe was in fact not doing well, but the source refuted the latest rumor that last rites were being given. Slightly relieved, I made the decision to take to Twitter and let people know that the recent rumors weren't entirely true, and that Joe was still battling.
Soon after, I received a couple of direct messages, as is the nature of inquisitive minds who want to know more. One of these was Devon Edwards, then-editor at Onward State. Devon is a good Internet friend with whom I've shared information before, and I didn't think twice when I engaged him in a private conversation about the situation.
Without divulging what Devon said to me, I did tell him what my source was saying and how credible I found this particular information. One line in particular that I shared with Devon stated as such: "Best not to be the first guy on something like this. If untrue, let someone else fall." What happened next would shape the future of social media, at least for Penn State and Onward State, for quite some time.
Around 5 pm, Onward State went live with information that Joe Paterno had been taken off of a respirator. At that time, I thought that information was false, but decided against trying to correct it. I would later find out that that information was actually true.
A couple of hours later, the bomb dropped, as Onward State announced that Joe Paterno had died at age 85. They followed this up with the announcement that football players had been informed via email of his passing. Within minutes, media outlets of all kinds were running with this story. A local radio station stopped their programming to announce Paterno's death, StateCollege.com reporter Nate Mink reported the same information heard on the radio via Twitter, and then national media caught wind.
Relying on Onward State's report but without directly crediting the report, Adam Jacobi of CBS Sports made the national announcement of Paterno's death. The post has since been replaced with an explanation and apology of sort, as well as more accurate updates of events, but the damage had already been done at that point. Huffington Post caught wind of the CBS story and published their own story, again not crediting Onward State, and the inaccurate cat was out of the bag. Even our own blog, Black Shoe Diaries, momentarily changed the front page post to show a life and death date for Joe Paterno. Additionally, the main SBN page ran with the story. They have since issued a retraction and apology, with one particular sentence essentially summing up the entire problem:
The reports spread to numerous trusted sources, sparking our own decision to publish a post as a result. It was based not on our own reporting, but on the reporting of others.
At this point it is unclear if CBS and Huffington Post wanted to pass the news off as their own, or if they were not in the business of crediting their sources (SBN's original post did credit the Onward State tweets with the news). What is now known, though, is that all outlets were wrong.
Soon thereafter, just before 9 pm, Paterno family spokesperson Dan McGinn made the shocking announcement that Joe Paterno was in fact not dead, and was continuing his battle with lung cancer. But that couldn't be, could it? Three seemingly trustworthy news reports had told the world that Joe was dead, and the mourning process had already begun.
McGinn's news, though, was true. Joe's death wouldn't occur for another 12 hours, but Twitter and bad reports had already buried the man. The new social media coupled with irresponsible journalism had killed a man who was alive and breathing in a Mount Nittany Medical room. How could this happen?
Right around the time Devon Edwards and I were trading information, Edwards was receiving additional information from other sources. It was on this information that Edwards relied when he made the decision to publish and tell the world of Paterno's death. I had told him what I knew, he shared a bit with me, and I made the statement written above. Best not to be the first guy on something like this. But that's what Edwards was, first guy out of the gate with news that would shock the Penn State fanbase to its core, as well as send gasps across the country. So his information had to be solid. Why risk everything that the young news outlet had worked so hard for? If you're going to break a story like that, you better have watched the man die.
Unfortunately, sources aren't what they used to be. While I trusted mine enough to thank them for their information, I was in no way prepared to break any stories, especially since the information I was receiving was contradictory to Onward State's information. My source was directly connected to the inner Paterno circle; Edwards must have someone even deeper, I thought. Nope, wrong again.
As it turns out, the sources relied upon were unbelievably less than reputable. Two reporters with Onward State attested to the fact that a high ranking Penn State official had sent the current Penn State football team an email with the details of Paterno's death. One reporter said they spoke with someone who had seen the email, another claimed he or she knew of the emails' contents as well. It seemed the very existence of the email was enough for Edwards and Onward State, and with a click of the mouse, the death of Joe Paterno, based on at least one level of hearsay and a false email from a Penn State official, was announced.
The email was found to be a hoax, the origin of which is still unknown, as is the identity of the two reporters. The second reporter at Onward State, who had claimed to have heard similar information that was seen in the email, was later found to have embellished his or her story. And Onward State was reeling.
Soon after the McGinn news broke, CBS and Huffington Post, along with other media that had made the inaccurate announcement, retracted their statements, this time making sure to give proper credit to Onward State. Forty five minutes after their life-altering tweet, Onward State issued their official retraction and pseudo-explanation, also via Twitter. So where does the blame fall in this tragic mess?
It falls to Devon Edwards and the staff at Onward State. As non-traditional journalists, it is imperative that any news you are going to break be checked, fact checked, and checked again before going to press. In a world where everyone has a blog, a Twitter account, and access to a message board, news media isn't relegated to the NBCs and CNNs of the world anymore. And that's a good thing. But it's a responsibility we must bear with caution. This kind of shameful example of irresponsible journalism is exactly what gives the mainstream media the ammunition to attack "basement bloggers" and the new Twitter media.
It falls to Adam Jacobi and CBS sports, both for relying upon Onward State's erroneous reports without further research, and then not crediting them. CBS Sports found Onward State's report credible enough for him to attach their name to the announcement, but felt it wasn't enough for them to receive proper credit. What if Onward State had actually been right? Jacobi, a founding member and former writer for the Iowa blog Black Heart Gold Pants, should be one of the first people interested in giving credit to the smaller, non-traditional media outlets.
It falls to Huffington Post, the 3.5-million-follower @BreakingNews, SB Nation, and any other media outlet that ran with this story without doing their own fact checking, instead relying upon the uncorroborated story of CBS Sports. Even though by this point the damage was done, no one bothered to stop and question who or what Onward State was relying upon for its information.
News media in America is a different monster than it was in 1948. No one is announcing the 2012 Presidential election before the eastern states report, and when the states do report, you'll probably learn about it first on Twitter. Anderson Cooper will tweet the winner of Pennsylvania, then announce it on CNN, and then a CNN staffer will write an article about it later that night. It's just how media works in 2012.
The instantaneous news cycle thus requires some heightened responsibility, at least from those who wish to taken seriously within its realm. Anyone can get on a computer and start talking about head coaching searches and other information; but if a news outlet seeks to be a player in the established field, they better research, report, and react with journalistic professionalism. Seemingly everyone has "sources" these days (Penn Staters know this quite well, given the recent head coaching search), but before a news announcement is made, by either CBS or Onward State or Black Shoe Diaries, the reporter better be sure of their information. One bad story and a reputation is ruined.
(Ed. This article represents the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Black Shoe Diaries.)
Be sure to become a fan of BSD on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!
4 recs | 53 comments
What does being first get you?
In the early ’60s the three major networks were reporting the winner of national elections after just 1% of the votes were counted on the east coast. Of course they were often wrong. What they failed to realize was that they were affecting the action of people on the west coast. Why bother voting? CBS/ABC/NBC says my candidate won(or lost). As was often the case “my candidate” lost because of the rush to report first. Since then all MAJOR networks agreed not to make predictions until all are polls closed. Fast forward to today and we have so little credibility in news reporting that it is impossible to separate the accurate from the inaccurate. See “Penn State scandal”. Unfortunately, there are so many “good” sources for bloggers, and so many bloggers that agreement to hold information until verified is impossible. It is a new form of Yellow Journalism. So what is one to do? As in the case of Coach Paterno, when I heard the news I checked with the most credible Penn State news source I know. BSD. You did not report it, so I did not tell my wife that Joe had died. I was contacted by a few friends who depend on me for PSU news and I told them to sit tight as it is just a rumor. Glad I followed my instincts. People went to bed in mourning only to wake up Sunday to the good news that Joe was still with us, then have to hear the bad news all over again. We are truly in the information age. Too bad most of it is inaccurate. Keep up the good work.
bluebellgolfer - January 25, 2012
FIFY
Mr. Rosewater - January 25, 2012
"Sources just aren't what they used to be"
—Editor, “Dewey defeats Truman” headline
—Publisher, Mark Twain’s premature obituary
This isn’t a problem specific to this epoch. Regardless, Devon gets to learn the lesson of a lifetime bundled up in a neat 45 minute sequence Saturday night. Kudos to the way he handled it, but this instance is going to be worth it’s weight in gold during job interviews.
Truck O'Saurus - January 25, 2012 via Android app
The main difference now
is the accessibility of the information. With social networking, information is spread as fast as someone thinks and types the words and hits the enter key. It’s simple. Too simple. We’re not used to seeing “behind the curtain” of how these stories break, but now we’re seeing it all in 140 characters. Whispers, rumors, assumptions and allegations; all hidden from the viewer until the truth was confirmed and then revealed, usually on the 5 o’clock news or Sunday paper. Now we see things swirling about from guys like Adam Shefter as well as guys like Sports by Brooks as they make their way to confirm what the real info is. But that doesn’t stop people from using the unconfirmed rumors and running with those (or making up their own info for guys like Brooks).
Part of the problem is the all-to-readiness of reporters to divulge rumors, but part of the problem is the trust given by the consumers (us) to those doling out this information. It seems like people are all to ready to believe the first thing they read on the internet despite where the information might be coming from, and then spread those unfounder rumors further. And possibly misinterpret and alter that information as they pass it on. People need to realize where their news is coming from and adjust how they interpret it accordingly. For example, look at who you are quoting/retweeting. Are they trustworthy and have given credible news in the past? Really, your best bet is to take any news broken on twitter or most blogs with a very large grain of salt. And dont fall for fake twitter accounts.
Really this whole situation was the worst possible outcome in the worst possible situation. It was incredibly unfortunate, but hopefully it helps to bring about some change for the better.
skarocksoi - January 25, 2012
What I just can't understand
Has anyone who used Devon’s tweets as a source ever read anything this guy had ever written here on BSD, or on other free Penn State message boards? Some of the most baseless inflammatory statements I’ve ever read on a Penn State message board were by him. Everytime I mention it, I get the “oh, he’s really changed since then” answer. Really? It wasn’t but a year ago he was banned from BSD, and now he’s officially the goat in this whole Paterno death report.
I don’t know Devon, and I don’t have twitter, and I don’t follow this stuff very closely. But I cannot reconcile all the posts I’ve read here and elsewhere and the fact that he was lately regarded as a serious journalist.
As far as I’m concerned, Devon is the greatest troll in the history of Penn State message boards.
millzners - January 25, 2012
Great troll or greatest troll
Tensions have been running pretty high lately. Perhaps it’s time for a trip down memory lane, to a more innocent time, when all BSDers came together for a common purpose…
http://www.blackshoediaries.com/2010/2/2/1289771/confessions-of-a-professional-troll
http://www.blackshoediaries.com/2010/2/3/1291439/is-it-time-for-ed-dechellis-to-go
http://www.blackshoediaries.com/2010/2/4/1292052/skins4ever-open-thread-2-4-2010
skins4ever' - January 25, 2012
Is it really you?
pmm156 - January 25, 2012
No
My first post is in one of those threads. Notice the apostrophe in …4ever’
skins4ever' - January 25, 2012 via mobile
BEST. THREADS. EVER.
letsgopsu - January 25, 2012
I'm not going to defend myself,
because, frankly, what happened is indefensible. What I will say, though, is that I’ve done a lot of growing up in the past few years. Those on this site who’ve interacted with me in that time frame can attest to that. And if you really think I was going to stake my personal reputation and that of an organization I’ve invested countless hours of my time in on trolling the world, you’re sorely mistaken.
Devon Edwards - January 25, 2012
Devon, I haven't had much interaction with you here
but I commend you for taking responsibility for what happened. No one in the media takes responsibility for anything they report anymore, but I’m glad you did and I respect you for that. I don’t believe you were acting any different than anyone else in your industry when you reported what you did, but your actions following the realization that it was not true shows that you believe in doing the right thing.
People don’t trust the media, but they will trust you after doing something that shows so much humility. Hopefully your lead can be the start of a positive change for the industry.
jls83 - January 25, 2012
I was here before you were banned
what I see now is MUCH different and more mature. I think people do grow up and change and imo (not that it matters) you did.
It must have been hard to take responsibility but you did. Learn and move on. Haters gonna hate, etc. etc.
Good luck.
letsgopsu - January 25, 2012
Personal reputation
Look, I’m not here to kick you while you’re down, but even a casual lurker of Audibles like me knows the type of posts you’ve become known for. You’re actually the only person I’ve ever put on an ignore list on Audibles, and this was years ago. I can’t imagine how you’ve been able to transition from that to having a “personal reputation” at stake in such a short period of time.
That being said, this is just the internet, and you are a real person who I’ve never met. So for me, those posts are all taken with a grain of salt. I hope you pull through all this and move forward with your career; I doubt any of this will matter in a year or two anyway.
millzners - January 25, 2012
Owning Saturday night was the honorable thing to do.
I respect that you did so and believe that, by taking the harder path, things will work out all the better for you in the end.
SubLime - January 25, 2012
I give Devon Edwards credit
At least he took responsibilty for his gross error in judgement and resigned. That is a lot more than I can say for most other media members who, despite having access to facts that support the contrary, hold on to their original “story” because doing so helps them claim the big pelt.
ljdevine - January 25, 2012
CBS should never bash ESPN again
For their lack of sourcing, that is all.
STU Boy - January 25, 2012
I think that was the biggest bullshit out of all of this
Devon and Onward State just ran with their sources (who were obviously wrong). They were a little overzealous in trying to break the story and didnt get the confirmation that they really should have before going out with the story. I can honestly understand that. They’re to blame for their actions, but to me it was an understandable slip-up.
What really pisses me off is CBS, who runs with Onward State’s story almost as if it is there own, not crediting them at all, and then holds them out as an excuse when it turns out the story is wrong. That’s pathetic to me. They are (supposedly) a major news organization and should have verified the story before running with it, as their networks make a much larger impact as a media entity than Onward State’s does. And then to come out and say “oh, well it really wasn’t our story, it was someone elses” as an excuse is just lame. Onward State is mostly just kids learning their craft, CBS is supposed to be professionals.
skarocksoi - January 25, 2012
It'd be hilarious to hear Jacobi weigh in on this
But I wouldn’t expect him to.
Other thoughts:
- Junny continues to improve his writing (keep it up, man)
- I think these kinds of stories are fascinating, even if it’s labeled as ‘meta.’ The stories of bloggy operations are very interesting and, in this age of democratized publication [© Professor Sublime], are quickly becoming as newsworthy as the content purportedly addressed therein
- Re: the Ed. note about this being the author’s opinion & not necessarily the blog’s: kudos to all three mods on getting this published. Junny for opining & wanting to write it, and C&K for not quashing it.
- I thought Millzners comment above was funny, cuz I remembered similarly.
- Lastly, tho, of course people evolve and can improve. I’d guess that all of Junny, Devon & Jacobi will continue to do so.
jtothep - January 25, 2012
Jacobi won't weigh in on this, because he can't, unfortunately.
Jeff Junstrom - January 25, 2012
I think it would suck balls to have somebody control my voice that way.
I’d rather work my day job, and write what I want hear.
jesse. - January 25, 2012
I would however like either an editor...
or an edit button.
jesse. - January 25, 2012
an edit button wouldn't be so bad
as long as it was wiki-style and it kept all previous versions. Otherwise I could see some very creative trolling.
First comment: I love JoePa and will miss him forever
gets numerous recs and people responding, “me too!”
Then they change the comment to, “JoePa is scum and he molested me” which then carries over all those recs and comments. Sure those people could then unrec and re-edit their responses, but not everyone will remember or check back, and besides, if they change their response to, “you are a disgusting freak, I hate you! Get out of here, we won’t tolerate that nonsense” then the original poster could just change their statement bacck to, “I love JoePa and will miss him forever” which will now have numerous negative responses following that.
The JuggerNitt - January 26, 2012
Would you rather they just make that consideration moo?
Bummer.
jtothep - January 27, 2012
As Butthead once said to Beavis during some corn/maize discussion,
“you’ve been paying attention.”
SubLime - January 25, 2012
I remember someone on this site posting something along the lines of establishing a sort of "Joe Paterno Center for Journalism Ethics and Responsibility."
As a 2007 Penn State graduate with a degree in Journalism, I am fully, 100% behind this idea. I would love to be involved in the creation of something like that. The de-evolution of the media has sickened me (long before November 2011) and I want to be a part of creating something, anything, that serves as a sports journalism watch-dog committee, something like a factcheck.org for the sports-realm. Of course, I have no idea how I would go about this, but this is definitely something that needs to be done as soon as possible.
Bob Sacamano - January 25, 2012
Maybe the University should re-think abandoning the Paterno news class [exact name?],
and do as you mention. Appreciate Jeff’s fleshing out of the story.
Regarding story above, I’d seen a death report on WBRE and, of course, was sad. They did attribute to CBS and Onward, State with the caveat “unconfirmed.” I came to BSD and found the update that the first report was false. The way it did play out in this instance was, in one respect, a break for the news outlets. Anyone away from media on Saturday wasn’t even aware of the false report. Can you imagine the furor if Coach Paterno had actually rallied and was still with us.
I stopped believing a lot of news at first look many years ago (pre internet). A small, Cub-type, plane was forced to land in hay field adjacent to our house: out of fuel apparently, no damage, no crash. By the time this hit the local newspaper the next day, you’d have thought it was a semi-major disaster. From then on I’ve tried to preface most news reading with the word “allegedly.”
be4time - January 25, 2012
This is what happens with the ability to broadcast instantly.
I’m sure it would’ve happened much more frequently in the past as well if more people had access to broadcast information. The beauty of newspapers and magazines is that there’s a fair amount of time between the story being produced and the story actually being printed. With radio and television, it’s faster, but still, fewer people have opportunity to report. With the internet, and everyone’s ability to post to a blog or submit a story, it’s just too easy to get out wrong information.
It’s also gotten to the point where in order to publish a story, you don’t need a certain amount of facts, you only need a certain amount of words. What you’re lacking in words and facts, you can make up with speculation and embellishment. What really makes this a liability is that previously there might only be 4-5 ways of verifying a story, now there are hundreds, and nobody wants to be left behind. As witnessed in this event, everyone needs to keep up with the latest breaking information, so they’ll publish it as long as they can place the responsibility on someone else. Instead of the public getting contradicting reports from 2 or 3 different media sources that forces them to investigate and think on their own, in today’s age they are blindsided with 50+ reports all claiming the same thing. Since journalism today seems to be more about capitalism than journalistic motives, I think it’s time we attribute “Buyer Be Ware” to these “media outlets” too.
Succss With Honor Always - January 25, 2012
One day I'm going to look up from my pile of animal bones in the center of my cave and have a good laugh about all this.
WorldBFat - January 25, 2012
Well written
thank you
424E. - January 25, 2012
(Incoming huge rant)
After this whole saga, along with watching the evolution of twitter and facebook, I honestly think the government needs to look into ways into punishing media outlets for the ‘misinformation’ that comes out in the media. To say that having the ability to get something out instantly greatens the room for error is true, but that’s an excuse, and doesn’t make it okay.
The media will blame their sources and push the fault on them, but think about your own job. If you put your signature on your company’s tax filings, and it turns out to be wrong, guess what? You’re going to jail! Is your accounting department at fault for giving you the wrong numbers? Sure they are. But the police are dragging you out in cuffs because you certified those things were accurate.
Everyone seems to believe that when media outlets consistently get information incorrect that people will start to not believe that particular media outlet (thus correcting the issue). I think that is a complete joke because how many people, a month later, remember the source of that incorrect information? We’re giving ourselves too much credit to think our attention span is that long.
Until media executives are held accountable for what their employees are reporting, tweeting, blogging, etc. this will not change. When the intial reports came out saying that Joe Pa had passed, I had a friend call me freaking out. I told her to calm down until you heard it from Penn State or the family and not to believe anything. Turns out, for once, I was right. But I can’t tell you how many texts/calls I received of people in mass hysteria over it. I honestly think this needs to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Reporting a man’s death incorrectly is pathetic.
And just as an FYI, I’m 23. You may think this post is coming from someone older, but it is not.
jls83 - January 25, 2012
So, government regulation of speech, eh?
No thanks. We’ve got libel, slander and defamation laws. Those should be sufficient.
kijana's acl - January 25, 2012
I'm not opening up a brand new law here
It’d fall under slander and defamation. Just an extension. And it’s a lot different than Joe Schmo calling so and so an idiot. Joe Schmo doesn’t pose as someone who should be bringing accurate and reliable information.
jls83 - January 25, 2012
Not a good idea
The way slander and libel laws work in the UK is a disaster for free speech. We don’t want that.
reedjohnmiller - January 25, 2012
Actually, I figured you might be in your twenties
since your proposition suggests someone who has grown up immersed in our contemporary surveillance culture. And while I feel you frustration, any remedy which tampers with our first amendment is dangerous.
If we can’t individually and collectively hold these folks accountable, then ultimately we’re going to get precisely what we deserve.
SubLime - January 25, 2012
About holding those folks accountable...
I’ve been emailing reporters/columnists/editors directly when I take issue with their reporting. I’ve received a couple of thoughtful replies, but mostly I get a benign “thank you for reading,” or nothing.
Has anyone else had success with engaging members of the media?
nps - January 25, 2012
No. Cowards.
Although David Jones has written me back a few times. Not so much about this, however.
reedjohnmiller - January 26, 2012 via mobile
Doesn't suprise me at all...
Publish first
ask questions later (or don’t even bother)
GoodOleDays - January 25, 2012
The first report I heard
The first report I heard came from the twitter feed of Sekrah Sports (@sekrah) who posted, around 6:11pm EST, something to the effect of “Joe Paterno has passed away. He was 85 #RIPJoePa”. This post has since been deleted, so there can be no confirmation of it.
Soon after that, the #RIPJoePa hastag started flying around.
BrianCW - January 25, 2012
Sekrah?
That’s a good of a source as Corey Giger!
nickrapak - January 25, 2012
Junny.....
a well written and cautionary tale…..unfortunately we are in the world of Breaking News and the “credit” for same…..as you write, “who’s first” is much more important than the truth of an actual story researched with the proper sources….I can tell you for sure that the Paterno Family and close friends were outraged at the early death reports about Joe and their requests at the time to allow their Family a period of privacy before and after Joe’s passing was not really granted…Yes I am not naive enough to believe that his death was not a big deal…my God, it’s akin to a world leaders death and subsequent memorial….but the situation cries for responsible reporting…..and that you are my friend, responsible and I thank you. Call upon me anytime.
DerryPharmer - January 25, 2012
You know I will.
Jeff Junstrom - January 25, 2012
I had the the same information relayed to me as Devon did.
Or at least so very similar that it might has well have been the same. I believe that what happened is that when Joe Paterno was taken off the respirator he death was inevitable, simply a matter of time. Possibly the people who leaked this information (in violation of several, really good laws) believed that the death would come sooner rather than later, and embellished the reports a little on their end. That is how I quantified the confusion on my end.
I also think that it’s possible that the Paterno family denied the reports so that they could tell their friends and family rather than CBS Sports. But that’s just a theory too.
jesse. - January 25, 2012
I'm only one consumer
and perhaps my opinion is in the minority, but I don’t get the business case for being “first”. I don’t choose my local news channel or my national news channel or my newspapers or twitter feeds based on who gets something first. I pick who has the best, more accurate content. No one has exclusivity on the news, when something happens everyone will report it quite quickly anyway.
I suspect it’s a self feeding mechanism, because journalists think that “first” is important, they pat each other on the back about it, which reinforces the perception. But the ultimate goal is to sell product, not please colleagues in the field.
When I hear my local news channel tout their own horn with a “you heard it here first” promo it actually makes me reach to change the channel. I’m going to consume the best media with the richest content, not the random dude who “breaks” a story.
Or at the very least, I’m going to watch the channel with the hottest chicks.
PSU Mudder - January 25, 2012
If you get a reputation for breaking accurate stories, then there is absolutely value there
The problem is that editors/producers often don’t carefully vet a story before greenlighting it, and the reporter knows that there are great incentives for being first and few repurcussions for being wrong. This seems to be particularly true in sports and entertainment “journalism”.
kijana's acl - January 25, 2012
I agree. . .
First mostly matters only among members of the media club. It appears to me that the “standard” has become so deeply institutionalized that it escapes scrutiny from those trapped within the paradigm mostly because they can no longer see the paradigm.
SubLime - January 25, 2012
Something you might not realize...
Something I sadly learned recently is that whoever is first will start racking up hits on the web first. The more hits they get, the more Facebook and Twitter recs the piece gets, etc. All of that helps determine who is first in a Google search result. This drives a lot of the ambition to be first.
So-called Search Engine Optimization is all the rage now among Internet advertisers and editors. It does nothing to enhance the quality of anything, but in a competitive business, nobody can afford to ignore it.
Anyway, that’s how my editor explained it to me. I try to be right and first, and if I can’t be first, at least be timely and right, but there’s always pressure. Fortunately, in writing about science, I’m usually writing before an embargo lift rather than an all-out race.
reedjohnmiller - January 26, 2012 via mobile
But don't want TV "news"
Seriously, it makes you dumber
reedjohnmiller - January 25, 2012
TV shows everything but explains nothing.
SubLime - January 25, 2012
Except that episode of Nature where they strapped the cameras to the eagles and showed the eagles killing shit and explained that eagles are fucking awesome.
WorldBFat - January 25, 2012
Exception granted.
SubLime - January 25, 2012
Required reading
All The Presidents Men. Any one who runs a blog should be required to watch this movie and take a test before being given access to the internet. This is the way investigative reporting should be done. This is the way that reporters should verify their info. I know it was a movie, but the book, which is more powerful, is right on.
bluebellgolfer - January 25, 2012
Not going to happen
There’s no money to be made in that kind of real journalism anymore (see my post on the O’Reilly email thread).
The hacks who write for blogs or Deadspin, etc, don’t care about proper journalism. If they did, they’d be writing for one of the dwindling number of news organizations that still adhere to those kind of dinosaur ideas like accuracy and evidence. And, to be honest, if they really cared, they wouldn’t be in the sports dept.
reedjohnmiller - January 26, 2012 via mobile
even the BBC has got it wrong
even the BBC has got in wrong on the odd occasion….
Well actually the story was correct as it turned out at a later date – its just a pity the reporters sources wouldn’t stand up and provide their information or they just weren’t good enough. The reporter and the editors who ran the story were sacked as they didn’t follow editorial guidelines – i.e. their sources weren’t good enough to prove the story and thus they shouldn’t have put it on the news.
Talking about sources etc – came a cross a really interesting post, not sure how accurate it is as I haven’t checked the source documentation, but I feel its definitely worth a read and certainly puts a slightly different context on what Joe did or didn’t do:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Three-False-Assertions-by-by-Walter-Uhler-120118-176.html
And if it this report is correct I can in some ways understand why Joe did what he did.
jaamgans - January 27, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Black Shoe Diaries to post a comment.