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

[Brooks, Kurt]

I hear ya, but as I say it was a report in context: units leaving code reporter gives possible reason. Report unfounded citizens informed.

Not unrelated MPD goes encrypted and says 'depend on our PIO' yet they have the worst PIO office in town.

We have had internal debates regarding how we did during the event. This conversation has provided me some new thoughts.

Thanks everyone.


On Sep 26, 2013, at 13:32, "Ed Tobias" <edtobias at comcast.net> wrote:

> Kurt -
>
> I wouldn't have even gone that far regarding the report of an incident at
> Bolling.  I think that doing something like that can help generate a level
> of anxiety in the community that isn't necessary.  I think that waiting a
> very few minutes to hear the response from the first units on scene, which
> quickly knocked down the shooting report, would have been preferable.  And,
> as far as viewers go, I don't think they know, or care, who's first by a few
> minutes.  They DO care, very much however, about us being right...and I
> frequently hear comments following a major event similar to "why don't you
> guys get your facts straight before putting them on the air?".
>
> Yes, I've heard the shouts of News Directors, many times, yelling "Why don't
> we have that?" but, really, there's nothing wrong with slowing down and
> being journalists, rather than just shoveling out what we hear.
>
> Ed (the old traditionalist)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brooks, Kurt
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 1:11 PM
> To: Jeff Krauss
> Cc: Ed Tobias ; Doug Kitchener ; Alan Henney ; Scan DC
> Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] "Careless reporting" or Journalistic
> snobsattackingcrime reporters, Fox5 and Twitter?
>
> That is exactly what we did. Our reporter said there are reports of another
> shooting while showing units leaving the Navy Yard code. When it proved
> false we came on and reported that.
>
> It was important to give the leaving units context. Otherwise may not have
> mentioned it.
>
> On Sep 26, 2013, at 13:05, "Jeff Krauss" <jeff at krauss.ws> wrote:
>
>> During the Navy Yard incident, Park Police
>> responded to reports of another shooting incident
>> at Bolling, which turned out to be unfounded.
>> It would have been wrong for a reporter to report
>> that police were responding to another shooting
>> incident, without verifying that such an incident was real.
>> But would it be wrong to report that police were
>> responding to *reports* of another shooting incident?
>> Would that need to be verified by calling Park
>> Police for verification, when the scanner clearly
>> confirmed that they were responding to something?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 12:56 PM 9/26/2013, Ed Tobias 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 >
>>> 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 >
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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
>