[Scan-DC] Fwd: "Careless reporting" or Journalistic snobs attacking crime reporters, Fox5 and Twitter?

[Bruce Harper]

Alan pointed out that I missed the "reply to" for this list is sent to
"sender" and not "list" so only he saw this. A couple days late, but my
take on trying to be "first" with scattered facts.

Bruce in Blacksburg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bruce Harper <brucebharper at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] "Careless reporting" or Journalistic snobs attacking
crime reporters, Fox5 and Twitter?
To: Alan Henney <alan at henney.com>


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Alan wrote:

"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.


​Been there, seen that. Long ago in another time, I was a reporter for the
small local paper in Radford (cell phone? We still typed stories on manual
typewriters). We had a scanner going in the newsroom all the time, just to
get a heads up on police calls of interest, accidents, fires, etc. It still
took some phone calls after visiting a wreck scene to get all the details
(if the police officer working the accident finished his report in time).
Sure, we worked to scoop the Roanoke Times when we could (and often did),
but being "first" in print had more to do with our late deadline for
afternoon publication vs. the night-before deadline for the morning Roanoke
paper.

Fast-forward a number of years to a Monday, April 16, on the Virginia Tech
campus. Partly from my newsroom days, I have a scanner sitting on my desk
just to keep up with what's going on. The first call of note that day was
"Shots fired in Norris" followed by a coordinated yet somewhat confused
response from a variety of police agencies (who were already on campus due
to the shooting earlier that morning). No one really knew exactly what was
happening, who or how many were involved, or if this was some coordinated
attack. ​Scanner traffic was all over the place as multiple dispatchers
tried to pass on info; the problems were compounded by the chained doors
that prevented access to the building. One description of the/a shooter as
an "Asian male" resulted in a student photographer who matched the
description being grabbed outside the building and parked in the back of a
police car until some time after it was all over. What to do with him was
almost an afterthought when someone remembered that he was still in the
car. SWAT teams spent the rest of the morning checking and clearing
buildings because no one knew exactly what the situation was. Rescue squad
traffic
​pretty much dried up after they got access to the building and someone
reported triage tags, including "30 black."

The media flocked to Blacksburg pretty quickly when word got out and a
media center was quickly set up to accommodate the crowd. The digging began
to find out who the victims were, using almost any means available.
Virginia Tech couldn't release any names until given the word by the state
medical examiner's office -- after relatives had been officially notified.
It put the university in a bit of a bad light, making it look like it was
withholding information, but hands were tied by rules and regulations. It
really didn't matter, though, since most media outlets had a pretty good
picture from their own digging -- right or wrong.

As to "incredibly lazy" information officers -- that is not necessarily the
case. As the university spokesman says, now when there is an incident you
have to react first, then get details later. Because of April 16 and other
events, the first move is to secure an area, go into lockdown, do whatever
in reaction to whatever the initial call/calls are, then sort out during
and after the incident just what happened and what might have started it.
PIOs may be in the loop, may know details but can't release them due to an
active police investigation, or may be as much in the dark as everyone
else. In the absence of "official" details, it seems that the media
(especially when ratings are at stake) will report whatever it can, right
or wrong, and worry about "fixing" it later. Is this a good way to do
journalism? Of course not, but when people are clamoring to know every
detail, there is a lot of pressure to provide those details before the
other person, paper, or TV station just to hang on to the audience.
Eventually it will catch up with everyone, when the wrong information leads
to bigger problems, and it may all collapse with a total lockdown on
information, starting with encryption of all radio traffic (or moving to
other means, such as cell phones -- of questionable reliability in a
crisis).

Easy answers? There are none -- for now, it seems that it is what it is and
the long-standing human tendency to speculate (and want to appear "in the
know") is just enhanced by Twitter and other means to share details.
Nothing is new other than a faster way to share.

Bruce in Blacksburg
 ​