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

Sat Sep 28 14:51:08 EDT 2013

I came late on this conversation and debate. I am often frustrated on what I hear on the "news" and how different it is from what I know to be the truth because I was either there or knew someone who was. Based on that it often makes me wonder how many other stories they report are the same way. 

I applaud good journalistic reporting and I am grateful to know folks like Alan Henney and Ed Tobias who often provide me perspective. I will continue to listen and report what I hear. The original article complaining about not getting the facts I can only think about an English teacher I once had who was hell bent on things being pronounced a certain way - just because someone says it different doesn't mean it's not correct.

Joe Bradley
(240) 793-2431

> On Sep 26, 2013, at 13:49, "Brooks, Kurt" <knbrooks at wusa9.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
>>>> companyâ€™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
>> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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