No subject

around (compared to 9/11) are all the different venues [3]available to a =
demanding public to get those answers. Twitter, Reddit and police =
scanner chatter streamed over the internet...all changed the way the =
public got its info fix.=20
Early in the week, the competition was fierce to be first. But midweek =
when a few big outlets got a potentially huge story wrong--the arrest of =
a suspect--the public now had two entities to lash out at: Those =
responsible for the attack, and a media that was sacrificing accuracy =
for speed.=20
The most prominent outlet to report erroneously on the arrest (that =
didn't happen) was CNN[4]. The Associated Press, Boston Globe and FOX =
News also got it wrong, but CNN and reporter John King got the brunt of =
criticism because they were first in the wrong department.=20
Know this: CNN is also held to a higher standard because of its heavier =
focus on hard/straight news. So when it makes a mistake like this in =
front of its biggest daytime audience in years, it somehow feels bigger. =

On Sunday, I was a guest on Reliable Sources [5]and for the second time =
this month. Not a big deal...I've guested on MSNBC, CNBC, FOX and FOX =
Business (among many local outlets and radio shows) dozens of times. But =
the TV thing never gets old and therefore can still be fun: The makeup =
takes five years off your life, you get your (receding) hair done, meet =
some familiar people, and there's always plenty of yummy carb-based food =
in the green room. Then you're on national or (in my case) New York =
local TV for 5-30 minutes, your friends bust your chops on Facebook and =
in text messages, and in the end, it doesn't take too much time out of =
the day.=20
Given the CNN blunder was widely-discussed story in media circles and =
among those who follow the industry (like the millions of unique =
visitors who come to Mediaite each month), I wondered if Kurtz would =
ignore the issue, skirt it by mentioning it in passing without allowing =
much elaboration, or actually dive feet first into it.=20
Note: Kurtz will greet you at some point before the show, but doesn't go =
over questions beforehand or share his perspective. It appears to all be =
in an effort to keep the show spontaneous, natural. If it seems =
rehearsed, viewers can sniff that out in the hurry. Having said that, =
while we're given a heads up on general topic, details of exactly what =
will be discussed or when aren't made available.=20
So when the show opened Sunday, it was somewhat surprising that Kurtz =
led with the CNN/King story, spending several minutes on what went =
wrong, what impact it would have on King and the network, and why CNN =
was singled out more than others who made the same mistake. There were =
plenty of other angles that could have kicked off the show (media =
coverage of the capture [6]of suspect #2, initial media reaction =
[7]after the bombing, expanded role of social media, etc), but the =
decision was made to address the elephant in the room first.=20
When the segment was over and we went to commercial, I thought about =
what other networks have the courage to put on a program like this...a =
show where a network calls out its own reporters and executives in such =
a public forum. Howard Stern's Sirius radio show comes to mind, but =
given the content and forum (unregulated radio) we may be talking apples =
and oranges. Ultimately, most executives at other networks would forbid =
its brand being damaged or its credibility questioned before its own =
viewers, but CNN...pre-Jeff Zucker[8], post-Jeff Zucker...doesn't =
matter...lets it all go.=20
In the end, the audience wants honesty, transparency. If it means =
challenging your own network, that doesn't hurt the brand...it only =
strengthens it. Viewers know that no media outlet is infallible, and in =
CNN's case, King/the network owned up to the mistake.=20
Kurtz knew people-particularly those in the bubble-would be watching to =
see how his show would handle such a delicate situation for CNN. But no =
punches were pulled, no stone left unturned in analyzing everything that =
went down media's most scrutinized week in 12 years.=20
This is unlike, say, the New York Post, which has refused to issue an =
apology [9]for putting a photograph of two innocent young men on its =
back cover under a headline, 'BAG MEN' early last week. The paper has =
shown zero remorse, stating that the paper never actually called said =
Bag Men suspects. Whatever. The implication is as indefensible as it is =
unsettling.=20
Reliable Sources is a show built on examining the media.=20
Media that includes CNN.=20
Kurtz could have downplayed or ignored the King story. Instead, he =
allowed an independent panel (Erik Wemple, Washington Post; Lauren =
Ashburn, Daily Beast) to bring their respective opinions and left it to =
the audience to decide.=20
The show did its job.=20
Just don't expect its host to be voted 'Most Popular' in a media =
yearbook anytime soon.=20
Watch the segment below, via CNN:
Follow Joe Concha on Twitter @ConchSports
[1]: http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=3DHoward+Kurtz [2]: =
http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-live-major-police-activity-reported-=
in-watertown-manhunt-underway-for-second-boston-bombing-suspect/ [3]: =
http://www.mediaite.com/online/in-times-of-media-caution-the-boston-manhu=
nt-proves-twitter-the-biggest-threat-to-old-news/ [4]: =
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ruh-roh-cnn-now-reporting-conflicting-reports-=
on-bombing-arrest-walks-back-report/ [5]: =
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mediaites-joe-concha-talks-twitters-advantage-=
over-news-media-on-cnn-boston-made-tv-feel-so-slow/ [6]: =
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-police-press-conference-in-watertown-mas=
s-after-suspect-captured/ [7]: =
http://www.mediaite.com/online/boston-blame-game-begins-some-journalists-=
and-experts-simply-cant-help-pointing-the-finger/ [8]: =
http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=3DJeff+Zucker [9]: =
http://www.mediaite.com/online/rupert-murdoch-defends-ny-posts-boston-bom=
bing-coverage-on-twitter/=20






National Public Radio

April 23, 2013 Tuesday

SHOW: Morning Edition 11:00 AM EST

Social Media Misidentifies Bombing Suspects

ANCHORS: Steve Henn

GUESTS: Alexis Madrigal, Sangeeta Tripathi

LENGTH: 647 words

DAVID GREENE: The New York Post last week ran a front-page photo of two =
teenage runners under the headline "Bag Men," implying that they had =
something to do with the Boston Marathon backpack bombs. Turns out those =
kids had nothing to do with the attacks.

But As NPR's Steve Henn reports, they came to the public's attention =
after their images were scooped up and pored over by hundreds of online, =
amateur sleuths.=20

STEVE HENN: Alex Madrigal covers technology at The Atlantic. =
[POST-BROADCAST CLARIFICATION: The first name of The Atlantic writer is =
Alexis, not Alex.] And he was watching the social media site Reddit last =
week, as some of its users decided to get involved in the aftermath of =
the Boston attack.

ALEXIS MADRIGAL: People at - not just at Reddit, but at Fortune and =
other Internet forums decided that they could help with the =
investigation by taking all the photos that had come out of the bombing, =
combing through them, and looking for - I'm sort of air-quoting here - =
"suspicious characters"; people carrying backpacks, people who might =
look like a terrorist.

STEVE HENN: Even in the beginning, Madrigal compared what was going on =
to vigilantism.

ALEXIS MADRIGAL: It was actually disrupting the official investigation =
because they were having to deal with all of these - sort of false =
suspects getting floated - and people getting accused. And it just =
turned into a big, old mess - which I think was quite predictable.

STEVE HENN: In fact, one reason investigators released photos of the =
suspects last week was to tamp down on rumors. Unfortunately...

ALEXIS MADRIGAL: People started to develop this theory that Sunil =
Tripathi was one of the bombers.

STEVE HENN: Tripathi is a 22-year-old student at Brown University, who's =
been missing since mid-March. The rumor was baseless, but it spread.

SANGEETA TRIPATHI: Buzz continued to build and build.

STEVE HENN: Sangeeta Tripathi is Sunil's sister. She and her family have =
been searching for her brother for more than a month. Early on, they set =
up a Facebook page.

SANGEETA TRIPATHI: In the hopes that one day somewhere - you know, Suni =
might log on in a public library, if he's OK; see the notes, and be =
triggered to reach out and call home.

STEVE HENN: But Thursday night, that Facebook page began to attract =
hateful, angry posts. Shortly after 10, the family pulled it down. By 11 =
p.m., Boston police were closing in on the true suspects in the case. =
And Alexis Madgrigal says the Internet was listening.

(SOUNDBITE OF POLICE RADIO CALL)

UNIDENTIFIED DISPATCHER: Ten-four. All units, 1-8-9 mapped out, should =
be advised...

ALEXIS MADRIGAL: There were people who during this time, were taking =
this stuff off the police scanner, and writing it down on Reddit.

STEVE HENN: Around 3 a.m., tweets and posts went up online, saying Sunil =
Tripathi had been named by police as a suspect - on the scanner. Again, =
this wasn't true; there's no record of police mentioning his name. But =
Sangeeta Tripathi says those tweets created a circus.

SANGEETA TRIPATHI: I personally got over 58 calls from media, between 3 =
a.m. and 4:11 in the morning. You know, my parents, who are very, very - =
raggedy from the past 36 days of our lives, were getting called and =
emailed.

STEVE HENN: News trucks showed up at their home. Sangeeta Tripathi says =
her family was already sick with worry - fearful for Sunil's safety, and =
his state of mind.

SANGEETA TRIPATHI: Sunil - clearly, to leave your whole family and your =
life, one is not in a good place, when one does that; and we are very, =
very worried about the costs of rash actions on fragile human beings. We =
hope that this doesn't happen again, to somebody else.

STEVE HENN: In three hours, that media siege was over. Police released =
the names of the real suspects. Today, the Tripathi family is still =
searching for Sunil. And yesterday, the general manager of Reddit =
apologized.

Steve Henn, NPR News, Silicon Valley.








The Daily Courier (Forest City, North Carolina)

April 23, 2013 Tuesday

Covering events from afar

BYLINE: MATT CLARK FROM THE EDITOR'S DESK

SECTION: OPINIONS; Pg. A4

LENGTH: 501 words

Alot of times, being a journalist and covering a story means having an =
hour of two of time where you research and things can be slow.

This is usually followed by 45 minutes to an hour of sheer panic and =
disarray.=20

Reporters can spend hours doing research, making phone calls, gathering =
information and spending that precious hour before deadline writing in a =
fury.

Editors are basically the same way.

Getting notes, going to meetings, coordinating coverage and checking on =
story production will likely fill up most of a day. But, that hour or so =
before deadline, the pressure is on and you are saddled with finalizing =
a news story budget, editing copy and making sure everything is =
straight.

Sometimes those things are all be out of flux, causing panic across the =
board.

Such was the case on Friday.

On Friday night, television media and the Twitter universe started =
perking up with developments in Boston surrounding the potential capture =
of a second suspect.

The newser in me jumped from where ever I was at the time and started to =
spring into action. Not because I was trying to get copy for the =
newspaper but because I was going to make an attempt at utilizing =
Twitter and The Daily Courier's website to keep readers informed. With =
my laptop in my lap and my iPhone next to me, I was prepared.

I started with watching developments on the Internet through outlets =
like NBC, CNN and Bloomberg - all of which were streaming coverage =
online.

I had the bright idea to look into monitoring scanner traffic out of =
Boston on my phone. So, I plugged in and away I went.

I had about 10 different tabs up on my laptop, including our website, =
Twitter, Internet television news and online scanner traffic from the =
Massachusetts State Police. On my iPhone, I had Boston Police radio =
traffic.

The events transpired and the website, Twitter and Facebook was updated =
with information over a two-hour period.

When I finally decided to put everything down and call it a night, I =
looked back and realized that there was never a moment in those two =
hours where I had taken a break or not done something regarding updating =
the situation from sources like The Boston Globe, the Associated Press =
or other credible media outlets. This also included following the Boston =
Police Department and reporters on the ground in Boston.

I was careful to not re-Tweet scanner traffic. I started to, initially, =
but thought better of it.

It took me back to the days of covering state government and sports =
where what used to be a pedestrian event to cover turned into a madhouse =
all thanks to the Internet.

After reflection and as I calmed myself and readied for sleep and I was =
reminded why I do what I do.

If even one person saw our website or followed our Twitter that night, I =
felt I had done my job.

And that is one of the reasons why journalists love their job.

Matthew Clark is the Editor of The Daily Courier. He can be reached at =
828-202-2927 or emailed at mclark at thedigitalcourier.com Follow him on =
Twitter @UMass --MClark or @TDCMatt







Nieman Journalism Lab

April 23, 2013 Tuesday 7:28 PM EST=20

Breaking news pragmatically: Some reflections on silence and timing in =
networked journalism

LENGTH: 3396 words

Apr 23, 2013 (Nieman Journalism Lab:http://www.niemanlab.org/ Delivered =
by Newstex)
Speak only if it improves upon the silence. --Mohandas Gandhi
Last week's coverage of the events in Boston showed how much the =
networked press needs to better understand two things: silence and =
timing.=20


The Internet makes it possible for people other than traditional =
journalists to express themselves, quickly, to potentially large =
audiences. But the ideal press should be about more than this. It should =
be about demonstrating robust answers to two inseparable questions: Why =
do you need to know something now? And why do you need to say something =
now? Both questions demand awareness of what not to say, and when not to =
say it -- knowledge the networked press is only beginning to develop.

The broadest definition of the networked press is a system that attends =
to, represents, circulates, and amplifies publicly meaningful =
perspectives. Last week in Boston, this system included: reporters at =
traditional, mainstream news organizations; Twitter and Facebook users =
circulating real-time information; government, transit, and law =
enforcement officers issuing updates and alerts; consumers of TV, radio, =
and police scanner streams; and Reddit and 4chan users who tried, and =
failed, to identify the bombers.
At best, the networked press told people important, time-sensitive =
information; it fostered empathy and thoughtful action; and it helped to =
create a sophisticated public ready to prosecute this tragedy and =
prevent future ones. But, sadly, there were lots of moments when this =
system failed spectacularly:
Journalists spoke[1], published[2], and speculated when they shouldn't =
have, admitting to the 'thrill of being first.'[3] Twitter users tweeted =
and retweeted information that proved to be false or distracting[4]. The =
Boston Police Department's scanner became an awkward and chaotic =
spectacle[5] that mixed official police business, media sourcing, and =
armchair sleuthing[6], amplified by the 'seductive stimulus-response'[7] =
of tweeting things that weren't said[8]. Reddit and 4chan users =
conducted[9] highly visible[10], erroneous[11], real-time =
experiments[12] in crowdsourcing[13] that they later apologized[14] =
for[15], but that law enforcement said hurt their investigation[16].
To be sure, there were bright spots. Some news and social media =
organizations restrained themselves[17], tried to educate audiences[18], =
and reflected[19] (belatedly[20]) on how they work[21]. Some reporters =
skillfully filled the air without fueling speculation[22], and one =
openly admitted 'I don't know shit.'[23] The Society for Professional =
Journalists cautioned against premature reporting, and some academics =
[24]weighed in[25] to explain how crowdsourcing[26] could be improved.
But the biggest errors of the week -- for legacy news organizations and =
social media users -- happened when those who spoke might have been =
better off saying nothing at all.
Silence
I mean silence as the thoughtful absence of speech. To suggest that =
people sometimes not speak, share interpretations, or engage in open, =
visible, experimental communication is to question ideas that run deep =
in U.S. culture: that more speech is always better[27], that many eyes =
make all bugs shallow[28], that sunlight is the best disinfectant[29]. =
We are encouraged to express ourselves, avoid libel, and trust that the =
marketplaces of ideas will eventually, somehow, produce the right =
answer. Social media companies cultivate these habits and attitudes as =
they encourage us to comment, like, tag, tweet, check in, and follow =
with abandon. We create value for them and their advertisers, while =
ostensibly letting us test our opinions against others.
So when moments like last week strike, the networked press finds itself =
unprepared for silence. We experience a structural double whammy -- =
hamstrung by social and economic forces that encourage us to express =
ourselves, and political traditions that expect truth to emerge from its =
collision with error[30]. Yet last week showed that, sometimes, events =
might need to unfold without commentary. As a business model, social =
networking sites are premised on constant expression, but does this mean =
the press needs to be?
How could we make sense of such silences? It might be interpreted as =
trust in those who are speaking -- but this assumption only works if =
speakers have legitimately earned the right to speak on our behalf. =
Silence might also be interpreted as trust in unmonitored power (e.g., =
law enforcement and government officials, or news organizations with =
special access to them), depending upon those we cannot see or hear to =
act on our behalf. But this assumption only works if those in power know =
the difference between privacy and secrecy -- between confidentiality =
that shelters people from unproductive scrutiny versus censorship that =
fuels corruption. Smart[31] critiques[32] of radical openness and =
Internet transparency are beginning to help us understand the meaning of =
silence; but we need more of them, especially in relation to breaking =
news.
The risks of misplaced trust are real. But we are in a unique historical =
moment when the press is ripe for radical redesign -- when it's possible =
for those creating the conditions under which the networked press =
operates to help us understand the meaning and value of online silence =
during breaking news events.
Timing
One way to trust silence is to understand why people speak when they do.
In the sociology of news organizations, there's a rich literature[33] on =
the role of timing in news[34]. Often, news breaks because as =
sumptions[35], technologies[36], and practices[37] align[38]: =
Journalists consider something significant enough to be called an =
'event'; it happens somewhere that news organizations are used to =
observing and describing; trusted sources stand ready to provide =
predictable quotes; and readers are primed to receive the news at about =
that time, from that place, in that context.
Even online news organizations obey predictable time patterns. One study =
describes online hard news as a series of 'event push' routines[39] in =
which journalists follow the rhythms the Internet imposes on them; =
another found that, despite the ideal of a continuously updated =
Internet, most stories are not updated more than 2 hours after they're =
published[40]; and another described how online newsrooms are more apt =
to label news 'breaking'[41] if they think it appeals to audiences and =
differentiates them from competitors.
News rhythms reflect what Emile Durkheim called a 'consensus on =
temporality.'[42] That is, they depend upon people agreeing to mark time =
-- on how and why one moment is significantly different from another. =
Sometimes markers are biological -- days end with the sun setting and =
people sleeping -- but they're often also social, technological, and =
organizational. Morning and evening newspapers reflected advertiser =
needs, readers' free time, and printing and distribution schedules. News =
rhythms exist in traditions -- not nature -- and they only 'work' =
because of largely invisible agreements about which changes are =
meaningful enough to be considered news.
So, given the distributed and dynamic character of today's networked =
press, when news can break at any moment, when should it break?
If the press only marks change when two or more reputable sources agree, =
the bar is set too low. Far better would be for the press to pass a =
pragmatic test: to explain what meaningful difference it would make for =
a particular version of the truth to be expressed now. Watertown =
residents needed to know to stay indoors[43] when they did, but why was =
it necessary for some people to fill Twitter air time specu lating about =
the suspects' ethnicity[44] whey they did? If the traditional media no =
longer 'owns the story,'[45] then the networked press might do a better =
job of telling us why it speaks when it does.
A pragmatic test for breaking news1[46]
It's extremely difficult to know whether your speech improves upon the =
silence at any moment in time. This is not an easy test to pass.
William James, the long-time Harvard researcher and co-founder of the =
pragmatist[47] philosophy[48], suggested that instead of asking 'is it =
true?' we might better ask 'what practical difference would it make for =
this idea versus another to be considered true?' It's a clunky question =
for sure, but it opens up a type of skepticism that might help the =
networked break news meaningfully. It asks the press not only to verify =
information (e.g., finding two or more reputable sources who agree) but =
also to decide for itself (and maybe tell audiences) why it's essential =
to hear a particular perspective at that moment.
Experienced news editors are already accustomed to asking themselves not =
only whether something has been verified, but whether it's =
newsworthy[49]. My sense, though, is that last week's media failures may =
have been mitigated if the networked press (journalists, Twitter, =
Reddit, and 4chan users alike) was used to passing this pragmatic test =
-- and if there were supportive cultures for doing so. Instead of =
assuming that more speech is always better -- that the online =
marketplace will judge the value of verified information 'out there' -- =
it might be a bigger public service to speak and consume attention only =
if you have a clear and defensible reason for doing so. Last week, we =
saw the consequences[50] of letting marketplaces figure it out[51] for =
themselves, of letting the media make things seem true[52] too quickly.
John Dewey, another pragmatist and press commentator, described ideal =
communication as empathy and foresight[53]. Since every utterance helps =
to 'make things common,' speakers are ethically obligated to imagine the =
consequences of their words. This kind of imagination requires knowing =
who you're communicating with, and anticipating how your words might =
relate to theirs -- two types of knowledge that are extraordinarily =
difficult to develop on the Internet, quickly.

What's to be done? First, those who design the conditions under which =
the networked press works -- regulators, publishers, funders, hackers -- =
might use these ideas of silence, timing, and pragmatism as starting =
points for policymaking and design. What would it mean to create =
breaking news environments that thoughtfully represented the absence of =
reporting, that structured news rhythms according to the impact reports =
might have at different times, that let some reports earn attention =
later and not now, that gave people (in real time) a sense of how their =
tweets and traces were impacting news coverage?
Second, those who publish in networked press environments might consider =
announcing why they are silent in particular moments, on particular =
topics. Imagine if CNN had told its viewers 'we're speculating without =
understanding impact, so we're going to return to regular programming =
for a while and come back when there's something meaningful to say.' Or =
suppose people following the Boston Police Scanner had tweeted 'not sure =
what I'm hearing or transcribing so I'm ignoring the scanner until =
things get clearer' -- and then they stopped being counted as a scanner =
listener.
Indeed, in an era of consumer surveillance[54] and big data[55] =
biases[56], users might consider the meaning of their presence in =
particular environments -- what it means to watch. Why did so many =
people tune into the Boston Police Department's scanner, how was their =
presence counted and interpreted[57], and might they have performed a =
better civic duty by not adding to the scanner's spectacle[58], pointing =
their browsers -- and attention -- elsewhere? There is certainly value =
in public oversight[59] of law enforcement but, if you listened to the =
scanner, why did you do so? Did the scanner become a news beat of its =
own because so many people were listening, and did news organizations =
report[60] how they did because so many people were lingering[61] on =
their feeds?
Finally, some may suggest that news organizations should be more =
transparent, letting audiences see their internal reporting and =
editorial decision making during breaking news events. As an educational =
goal, this has real value since audiences may better appreciate how =
difficult it is to make quick news judgments. But given the risks of =
transparency (of not understanding what's made visible) and its =
sometimes questionable value in time-sensitive contexts, I suspect that =
a better, more systemic approach would be to figure out how to trust the =
networked press when it's not speaking. Such trust may give silences the =
time they need to be meaningful.

During breaking news -- when events are happening now, when people are =
competing to be first and most visible, when the scanner is filled with =
choppy audio, and when crowdsourcing is immature -- the networked press =
might pause and ask itself 'what if the version of the truth I'm about =
to say is taken to be true?' In these moments, pausing, listening[62], =
observing, and thinking is not civic inaction -- rather, it is a =
different, less observable type of participation that needs to be better =
understood, valued, and made more visible.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that anyone should ask permission to =
speak, or that speech should be technologically delayed, buffered, or =
censored. Rather, I'm imagining what the networked press might look like =
if people engaged in empathy and foresight before speaking during =
breaking news situations, making silences meaningful amidst unfettered =
self-expression. What would this press look like, and how might we =
design it? It certainly takes courage to speak -- but it takes a =
different kind of courage to be silent, to listen, to trust, and speak =
when the time is right.=20

Mike Ananny[63] is an assistant professor at USC Annenberg, where he =
researches the public significance of systems for networked journalism. =
He is also a faculty associate with Harvard's Berkman Center for =
Internet amp; Society, holds a Ph.D. in communication from Stanford, a =
master's degree from the MIT Media Lab, and a bachelor's from the =
University of Toronto.

Photo by Anders Printz[64] used under a Creative Commons license.
NotesThanks to Professor Ted Glasser[65] for this idea and phrasing.
[1]: =
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/video-cnn-screws-up-bost%20o=
n-bomb-suspect-arrest.html [2]: =
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/ny-post-boston-suspects-bag-%20m=
en-front-page_n_3109052.html [3]: =
http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/apr/19/twitter-coverage-through-night/%20 =
[4]: =
http://www.mediabistro.com/10000words/boston-marathon-tragedy-exposes%20-=
twitters-reporting-flaws_b18546 [5]: =
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/boston-police-scanner-live-t%20w=
eeting-manhunt_n_3118253.html [6]: =
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fi-boston-bombings-%20m=
edia-20130420,0,19541.story [7]: =
http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/apr/19/twitter-coverage-through-night/%20 =
[8]: =
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/04/reddit-police-scann%20e=
r-innocent-boston-suspects/64384/ [9]: =
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/04/the-great-big-%20m=
ystery-machine.html [10]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22214511 =
[11]: =
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/04/it-wasnt-sunil-%20t=
ripathi-the-anatomy-of-a-misinformation-disaster/275155/ [12]: =
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/04/the-webs-faile%20d=
-hunt-for-the-boston-bomber.html [13]: =
http://gawker.com/5994892/your-guide-to-the-boston-marathon-bombing-a%20m=
ateur-internet-crowd+sleuthing [14]: =
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2013/04/19/reddit-sunil-tripa%20t=
hi-apologize_n_3117051.html?ncid=3Dedlinkusaolp00000003 [15]: =
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/reddit-find-boston-bo%20m=
bers-founder-interview/64455/ [16]: =
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/inside-the-inve%20s=
tigation-of-the-boston-marathon-bombing/2013/04/20/19d8c322-a8ff-11e2-b02=
9%20-8fb7e977ef71_story.html [17]: =
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/public-editor/a-model-of-restraint-%20i=
n-the-race-for-news.html?_r=3D1amp; [18]: =
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2013/04/when-following-breaking-news-wh%20y=
-it-helps-to-think-like-a-journalist109.html [19]: =
http://blog.storyful.com/2013/04/21/when-everyone-is-an-eye-witness-w%20h=
at-is-a-journalist/#.UXTJMMqmjg- [20]: =
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/reddit-find-boston-bo%20m=
bers-founder-interview/64455/ [21]: =
http://blog.breakingnews.com/post/48141276925/how-we-balance-speed-wi%20t=
h-rumor-control-with-any [22]: =
http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/apr/19/what-do-you-broadcast-when-ther%20e=
s-nothing-say/ [23]: =
http://gawker.com/5995120/local-reporter-admits-i-dont-know-shit-live%20-=
on-nbc [24]: https://twitter.com/spj_tweets/status/325137432880226304 =
[25]: =
http://culturedigitally.org/2013/04/boston-marathon-bombing-and-emerg%20e=
ncy-crowdsourced-investigation/ [26]: =
http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/crowdsourcing [27]: =
http://prospect.org/article/remedy-more-speech [28]: =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus%27s_Law [29]: =
http://www.brandeis.edu/legacyfund/bio.html [30]: =
http://www.bartleby.com/130/2.html [31]: =
http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/03/a-database-of-folly/ [32]: =
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparenc%20y=
 [33]: =
http://ocw.korea.edu/ocw/school-of-journalism-and-mass-communication/%20c=
ee4bba4b2c8cf00c774c158-c5f0ad6cbc29bc95/data/8.pdf [34]: =
http://books.google.com/books?id=3Df2fx7Vk2rIcCamp;q=3Ddeadlines%2C+date%=
20lines#search_anchor [35]: =
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2094279?uid=3D3739560amp;uid=3D212%=
209amp;uid=3D2amp;uid=3D70amp;uid=3D4amp;uid=3D3739256amp;sid=3D211019365=
84423 [36]: http://jmq.sagepub.com/content/71/3/561.abstract [37]: =
http://books.google.com/books/about/MAKING_NEWS_A_STUDY_IN_THE_CONSTR%20U=
CTION.html?id=3DX61iAAAAMAAJ [38]: =
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00770.x%20/=
abstract [39]: =
http://www.amazon.com/News-Work-Imitation-Information-Abundance/dp/02%202=
6062805 [40]: =
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17512786.2012.667274 [41]: =
http://nordicom.statsbiblioteket.dk/ncom/en/publications/routinizing-%20b=
reaking-news%288503d8e0-9b5c-4dc0-8e75-d52c27616940%29.html [42]: =
http://books.google.com/books?id=3Dc_wpcv18qwUCamp;pg=3DPA2amp;lpg=3DPA2a=
mp;%20amp;dq=3Ddurkheim+%22consensus+on+temporality%22amp;source=3Dblamp;=
ots=3DvDtv6p%20H7gWamp;sig=3DXOttbravoENUxixcI69C8Xi5zkIamp;hl=3Denamp;sa=
=3DXamp;ei=3DRbl0UdzV%20AuaEiwL97oDIBwamp;ved=3D0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=3Donepageam=
p;q=3Ddurkheim%20%22consensus%%2020on%20temporality%22amp;f=3Dfalse =
[43]: https://twitter.com/Boston_Police/status/325384259697274880 [44]: =
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/04/boston_bo%20m=
bing_breaking_news_don_t_watch_cable_shut_off_twitter_you_d_be.html =
[45]: =
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/the-media-doesnt-own-the-story-anym%20o=
re [46]: =
http://www.niemanlab.org/2013/04/breaking-news-pragmatically-some-reflect=
ions-on-silence-and-timing-in-networked-journalism/#footnote_0_79969 =
[47]: =
http://www.amazon.com/The-Metaphysical-Club-Story-America/dp/03745284%209=
7 [48]: =
http://www.amazon.com/American-Pragmatists-Oxford-History-Philosophy/%20d=
p/0199231206/ [49]: =
http://www.amazon.com/Deciding-Whats-News-Newsweek-American/dp/081012%202=
375 [50]: =
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/teen-boston-marathon-bomber/story?id=3D18%2=
0990057#.UXTFscqmjg9 [51]: =
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/19/boston-bombing-suspects-r%20e=
ddit-social-media [52]: =
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/17/cnns_boston_embarrassment_how_a_scoop%20_=
turns_sour/ [53]: =
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1977.tb01793.x%20/=
abstract [54]: =
http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/ojs/index.php/journal/article%20/=
view/alienation [55]: =
http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/default.aspx?id=3D155639 [56]: =
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/04/the_hidden_biases_in_big_data.html [57]: =
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57580551/boston-manhunt-complicat%20e=
d-by-ustream-twitter/ [58]: =
https://m.facebook.com/thematthewkeys/posts/449050131830561 [59]: =
http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/19/4243766/why-are-police-scanners-ope%20n=
-to-the-public [60]: http://www.cwanderson.org/?page_id=3D570 [61]: =
http://crx.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/11/19/0093650212467031.abst%20r=
act [62]: http://politybooks.com/book.asp?ref=3D9780745660257 [63]: =
http://mike.ananny.org/ [64]: =
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andersprintz/4464692837/in/photostream/ =
[65]: http://comm.stanford.edu/faculty-glasser/=20







The Cape Cod Chronicle (Chatham, Massachusetts)

April 25, 2013=20
Chatham Edition

EDITORIAL

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 22A

LENGTH: 541 words

Take-a-deep-breath Journalism

Reading, watching and listening to the dizzying continuous coverage of =
the Boston Marathon bombings left us wondering whether the digital age =
is all it's cracked up to be.=20

The raw, human tragedy that played out last week on the streets of =
Boston and Watertown was a chapter in our history as Americans, and it =
was, of course, a blockbuster news story. But the flow of information, =
both credible and nonsensical, came at a feverish pace that made =
responsible journalism a real challenge.