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

Thu Sep 26 13:14:12 EDT 2013

I agree. Encryption is a direct result of smart phone apps.

Back when scanning took work and intelligence it wasn't viewed as big of a threat.

On Sep 26, 2013, at 13:09, "Jeffrey Embry" <jeffrey.embry at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?)
> ______________________________________________________________
> Scan-DC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scan-dc
> Help: 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