[Scan-DC] "Careless reporting" or Journalistic snobsattacking crime reporters, Fox5 and Twitter?

Thu Sep 26 13:09:02 EDT 2013

Very well said Ed,

I am from the old school in that what I hear on a scanner, I do not divulge
to anyone.  This is how I try to keep the hobby I enjoy going.
Additionally, I don't use streaming audio, except for Air Traffic Control.
Perhaps it is legal to stream fire and police activity on the Internet, but
being old school, I consider it to be wrong.  I have been curious to know
how many departments would be encrypting now, if streaming in the Internet
was not permitted.  I suspect fewer.

73

Jeff
K3OQ

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Ed Tobias <edtobias at comcast.net> wrote:

> No, Doug there IS something wrong with reporting what's heard on the
> scanner without verifying it.  No journalist worth his salt would do that.
>  We don't report speculation or rumors.  We don't say, "well, if we're
> wrong we'll just correct it later."  The rule we follow is "get it first,
> but first get it right."
>
> If you want to hear unconfirmed, and sometimes totally wrong, information
> listen to your scanner.....as we all do.  Share it, as many of us do, with
> this group...but it shouldn't be put out to the general public.
>
> Also, legally, there is uncertainty about whether it's permissible to
> divulge what you hear on a public safety channel.  In the old days there
> used to be a strict rule that you couldn't, but the FCC's web site is now
> vague about what content you can share:
>
> "Section 705 prohibits a person from using an intercepted radio
> communication for his or her own benefit. One court held that, under this
> provision, a taxicab company may sue its competitor for wrongfully
> intercepting and using for its benefit radio communications between the
> company’s dispatchers and drivers. A more recent Supreme Court decision,
> however, questions the ability of the government to regulate the disclosure
> of legally-obtained radio communications, and this area of the law remains
> unsettled."
>
> Another good reason to use what's being heard only as a tip....but VERIFY
> it before putting it on the air, or printing it, or tweeting it.
>
>
> Ed
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Doug Kitchener
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 11:26 AM
> To: Alan Henney ; Scan DC
>
> Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] "Careless reporting" or Journalistic snobsattacking
> crime reporters, Fox5 and Twitter?
>
>  Interesting.  Nothing wrong with reporting what's heard on the scanner,
> as long as it's qualified with that fact... i.e. "heard on the scanner, car
> 1-adam-12 reports the shooter possibly down" or something like that.
>
> Anyone who listens to a scanner regularly knows how these events unfold...
> at the time no one knows what's really going on and that there can always
> be a certain amount of speculation, misinformation, incorrect conclusions,
> etc. (Example, originally there were three shooters at the Navy Yard).
>
> Unfortunately, not everyone realizes that.  Also, there'll always be lots
> of second-guessing, Monday-morning quarterbacking, and 20/20 hindsight, and
> that will be by experts, people who think they're experts, and people who
> don't have a clue.
>
> All that the reporters at the scene can do is what they feel is their best
> effort at the time, attempting to be as clear as possible and try to
> correct any errors as they go along.  Any reasonable person is going to
> realize that there can easily be glitches.
>
> DK
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>> From: Alan Henney <alan at henney.com>
>> To: Scan DC <Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net>
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 12:27 AM
>> Subject: [Scan-DC] "Careless reporting" or Journalistic snobs attacking
>> crime reporters, Fox5 and Twitter?
>>
>>
>> Now that the dust has started to settle over the Navy Yard, should we be
>> troubled by this continued pattern of the main-stream "journalists"
>> bashing their colleagues and crime/local news reporters and Twitter users
>> who
>> monitor scanners and report what they hear?
>>
>> I sense a struggle between the get-it-right people who will write you a
>> term
>> paper [NEXT WEEK] on what happened today and those guys in the trenches
>> of news
>> gathering who are struggling to report the news as they receive it, NOW.
>>
>> Of course there will be mistakes.
>>
>> Do the journalistic snobs have any clue that there is hardly anything
>> left that
>> isn't already encrypted these days?  Do they care?  How much longer are
>> they
>> going to blame the scanner listeners?
>>
>> No worries.  We go after the Twitter folks next.  We have already seen
>> that
>> shift.
>>
>> Having been in the news business myself, I certainly would be careful
>> about what
>> I would pass along from ANY source.
>>
>> I remember my old journalism teacher... attribution, attribution,
>> attribution.
>> It would certainly help if TV people would consider more attribution, but
>> attribution does not read as nicely on TV as it does in print.
>>
>> "Information" newsrooms receive from spokespersons can be just as
>> flawed as that gotten from scanners, even worse, but it is taken as fact,
>> just
>> because it comes from an official source [not our fault if it's wrong?].
>> It
>> often lacks the detail that the scanner community enjoys.  Sadly, public
>> information offices have gotten incredibly lazy.  The public is unaware
>> of these
>> problems because the "journalists" are afraid to bite the hand that
>> [spoon] feeds them and complain about the incredible lazy PIO staff.
>>
>> We're fighting the natural evolution of a news story.  Admit it.
>>
>> I say cut the folks at Fox 5 a break and God bless Twitter [I think the
>> term-paper editors are simply envious].
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -------
>>
>>
>> Spartan Daily: San Jose State University
>>
>> September 23, 2013 Monday
>>
>> Careless reporting and inaccurate details is a recipe for disaster
>>
>> BYLINE: Juan Reyes
>>
>> SECTION: OPINION; Pg. 1
>>
>> LENGTH: 910 words
>>
>> There's no mystery that news outlets have been known to mess up a story
>> from
>> time to time due to the incompetence of true reporting.
>>
>> The world of social media and the technology used to disseminate breaking
>> news
>> should be utilized responsibly and there's minimal room, or sometimes none
>> at all, for critical errors in the industry of journalism.
>>
>> But recently the big dogs at CNN, CBS and NBC have not been up to par
>> when it
>> comes to accurate reporting during a time of chaos and to be honest I
>> think
>> it's pure laziness along with a dash of an "I don't give a shit
>> mentality."
>>
>> When the horrific shooting took place in Washington D.C. on September 16,
>> the
>> buffoons over at FOX 5 DC posted tweets like "Scanner: Woman - shot in the
>> shoulder - awaiting help - atop a roof on grounds of Wash Navy Yard," and
>> "AT LEAST 5 PEOPLE SHOT - WASH NAVY YARD."
>>
>> Really? They posted new bits of details every five to ten minutes just
>> the way I
>> would for a local high school football game and to top it off, they
>> reported
>> sensitive, and maybe flawed, material on their Twitter feed.
>>
>> NBC and CBS News didn't learn a lesson when they identified the Navy Yard
>> shooter in last week's affair but realized it was false information and
>> quickly removed all of their tweets. According to Rem Rieder of USA Today
>> News,
>> a Twitter feed from Charlie Kaye of CBS read, "BREAKING. ?@johnmillercbs
>> advises the initial reports identifying the suspected shooter as Rollie
>> Chance
>> are wrong."
>>
>> I thought it was a smart move by CNN not to report anything this time
>> around
>> since their tiny blunder about the police making an arrest on an alleged
>> suspect
>> in the Boston Marathon bombing on April 14.
>>
>> The New York Post originally reported the story of a Saudi Arabian man
>> being
>> held under suspicion of the bombing and was guarded at a local hospital.
>> It
>> turned out he was only a witness and not the "person of interest" the
>> cops were looking for.
>>
>> The New York Post claimed they received information from John Miller of
>> CBS
>> News, and a former associate director at the FBI, about the so-called
>> suspect of
>> the bombing that was taken into custody.
>>
>> The newspaper company also reported 12 people were killed in the attack
>> and
>> posted a picture of a different group of alleged bombers. They were wrong
>> again
>> and it turned out to be three deaths, not 12 and everyone the New York
>> Post had
>> accused as the bomber was eventually released.
>>
>> It just boggles my mind how these journalists have so much experience
>> under
>> their belts and the one thing they can't do right is gather precise
>> information from legitimate sources, it's amateur reporting at its finest.
>>
>> They choose to rely on random intelligence from a police scanner radio
>> and then
>> compete against other reporters to be the first one to get the
>> information out
>> without confirming if it's true or not.
>>
>> I think it's a big problem that news outlets are treating the
>> craftsmanship
>> of reporting as a game of immediacy. Companies are pushing to get their
>> stuff
>> out first and have lost the patience to gather trustworthy facts for a
>> genuine
>> and factual story.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, I like coming in first place just as the person next
>> to
>> me, but not when it comes to reporting artificial details and a bunch of
>> nonsense.
>>
>> I saw an episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and he had some words
>> to say
>> about the recent poor reporting done during the Washington D.C. incident.
>> He was
>> baffled on the nonsense CNN was showing on TV.
>>
>> For example, Stewart played a montage of clips from a report done by
>> Brian Todd
>> of CNN going into detail about his surroundings and nothing about the
>> shooting.
>> The final excerpt showed a helicopter flying by and Todd saying,
>> "That's about as low as we've seen him go so that's an
>> interesting development."
>>
>> Stewart replied to the clip in frustration, "No, No. That's not an
>> interesting development. Those aren't interesting developments. You're
>> just standing in front of a camera naming shit you see."
>>
>> "It's like walking down the street with a five-year-old," he
>> added.
>>
>> But let's be honest, this isn't the first time phony details from
>> supposedly reliable news sources have come into play and it definitely
>> won't
>> be the last.
>>
>> In 1912, the New York Times reported a story that stemmed from a set of
>> fake
>> telegraphs and they ended up writing that the Titanic had not gone down,
>> but was
>> actually on its way to Halifax. Sadly, that wasn't the case and the lack
>> of
>> proper investigating made the folks at the New York Times look like fools.
>>
>> Last, but definitely never forgotten, there's the Sandy Hook Elementary
>> incident that took place on Dec. 14, 2012. CNN broke the news that Ryan
>> Lanza
>> was the alleged shooter when it turned out it was actually Adam, not
>> Ryan. A
>> local report also said Adam Lanza's dad was killed and CBS News reported
>> there was a second gunman in custody, both turned out to be inaccurate.
>>
>> I'm sure some bad reporting had a lot to do with the authorities giving
>> out
>> the wrong details, but even I know better than to wait for a final police
>> report
>> where statements and names go on record. I would rather have my news
>> story come
>> out a little later with the exact facts then some garbage with phony
>> details.
>>
>> Not only does it save my ass from keeping a job but it also won't make me
>> look like an ignorant moron that blabbers a bunch of hogwash information.
>> Don't get me wrong, the name of the game in journalism is to get the news
>> out as fast as possible, but what's the use of getting a story out quickly
>> if it turns out to be a fairy tale in the end?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> National Public Radio
>>
>> September 17, 2013 Tuesday
>>
>> SHOW: All Things Considered 08:00 PM EST
>>
>> Why Outlets Often Get It Wrong In Breaking News Coverage
>>
>> ANCHORS: David Folkenflik, Audie Cornish
>>
>> LENGTH: 665 words
>>
>> AUDIE CORNISH: As news traveled about the mass shootings at the Navy
>> Yard, there
>> were some missteps by the media. At first, some news outlets reported
>> there were
>> up to three different gunmen. So far, that's turned out not to be the
>> case.
>> There were reports that there was a second shooting at Bolling Air Force
>> Base;
>> that turned out not to be the case. Never mind the conflicting number of
>> casualties reported as the tragedy unfolded.
>>
>> NPR's media correspondent, David Folkenflik, was wary of the emerging
>> information; and he posted this on his Twitter account: Reports amid
>> breaking
>> news are provisional and often wrong.
>>
>> So does breaking news need this warning label? David is here to talk
>> more. And
>> David, let's talk about this warning label. Is it - I don't know if
>> it's for the media, the news sources or the audience itself. But let's
>> start with the new sources.
>>
>> DAVID FOLKENFLIK: Well, I think that what you have is an incredible
>> fragmentation of information. I mean, in a city like D.C., you have not
>> only
>> local and federal officials, but you also have military police converging
>> on the
>> site. You have first responders. You've got people at the hospitals. All
>> of
>> these folks have a couple of tiles here and there, of a much larger
>> mosaic.
>> It's unreasonable for journalists to expect that these sources are going
>> to
>> know everything in the immediate aftermath of a terrible incident like
>> this,
>> particularly one that is continuing to play out.
>>
>> AUDIE CORNISH: At the same time, that's our job, right? Reporters are
>> supposed to run down and verify this information. Are we letting them off
>> the
>> hook?
>>
>> DAVID FOLKENFLIK: Well, look - I mean, I think news organizations made a
>> number
>> of things that proved to be errors of fact. And they also proved to make
>> some
>> errors of judgment. WTTG, I believe - the Fox station down in Washington -
>> picked things off the police scanner. That's, in some ways - sounds like
>> it's a very innovative move. After all, you can hear the communications of
>> law enforcement officials. But it's raw information. It's untested. And
>> there is no, you know, scanner channel that says these are the things
>> we're
>> retracting, that we said earlier.
>>
>> News organizations are expected to chase these things down. They're also
>> expected to show some discretion, to make sure that unless it's pinned
>> down,
>> that they don't put it out on the air or online. And yet, that's a
>> really hard thing to do in this day and age.
>>
>> AUDIE CORNISH: And then, let's talk about the audience, which more and
>> more
>> is participating in gathering the news, right? I mean, social media. Is
>> it a
>> problem in these breaking news situations, or an innovation?
>>
>> DAVID FOLKENFLIK: Well, I'd say both. I would say that through social
>> media,
>> what we used to think of as the audience - the public - is both gathering
>> information, sharing information - sharing context, at times; also
>> sharing a lot
>> of misinformation, and relaying things that the news organizations or
>> others
>> have gotten wrong.
>>
>> Sometimes, they're sharing a photograph from what turns out to be a
>> completely different incident - as occurred today, apparently, in the New
>> York
>> Daily News. Sometimes they're sharing context that doesn't prove to be
>> true, as happened - BuzzFeed did an entire article on the basis of the
>> idea that
>> the shooter was using an AR-15; it now it appears that was not the weapon
>> that
>> he used.
>>
>> So the audience does all those things and at the same time, they expect
>> instantaneous information not only on social media, but also from more
>> conventional news organizations like the cable networks. And our
>> expectations as
>> an audience, has to be shifted a little bit. We have to know that in the
>> aftermath of developing events, that those two things are incompatible -
>> authoritativeness and immediacy; and that we can't expect news
>> organizations
>> to provide us exactly what happened right away. Those two things can't be
>> knit together.
>>
>> AUDIE CORNISH: That's NPR's media correspondent David Folkenflik. David,
>> thank you.
>>
>> DAVID FOLKENFLIK: You bet.
>> ______________________________**______________________________**__
>> Scan-DC mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/**mailman/listinfo/scan-dc<http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scan-dc>
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.**htm<http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm>
>> Post: mailto:Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>> ______________________________**______________________________**__
> Scan-DC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/**mailman/listinfo/scan-dc<http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scan-dc>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.**htm<http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm>
> Post: mailto:Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________**______________________________**__
> Scan-DC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/**mailman/listinfo/scan-dc<http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scan-dc>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.**htm<http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm>
> Post: mailto:Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

-- 
Jeff Embry, K3OQ
FM19nb
ARCI #11643, FPQRP #-696,
QRP-L # 67, NAQCC #25, ARS #1733
AMSAT LM-2263

--
WWWDWOA?
(What Would We Do Without Acronyms?)