[SOC] Do-it-yourself war coverage

[JMcAulay]

At 08:50 AM 03/26/2003 -0800, Lloyd Lachow wrote:
>Do-it-yourself war coverage 
>
>By Alex Beam, Globe Columnist, 3/25/2003 
>

I am at least mildly surprised when journalists seem to ignore the
existence of the "first and worst" phenomenon in news reporting.  It is not
uncommon for the earliest reports of any newsworthy occurrence to be almost
incredibly wrong.  And no, this is not restricted to the reporting of
rushed and crazed situations such as war.  Despite what Historiograpghers
may say, those closest to a situation may in fact *not* be the best
reporters.  This is stimulated in part, at least, by the compulsion of
reporters to "scoop" other sources.  Dan Rather, now a highly respected
news professional, was the first reporter to advise the world that John F.
Kennedy was dead.  But he actually made the announcement before the Doctors
attending the President had done so.  Rather, of course, was proved
correct, and his carreer blossomed.

An example:  Some months ago, radio reports were broadcast all over the US
that the famous old Cannery Building in San Francisco was ablaze.  Network
newscasts that evening had impressive footage of the fire, clearly showing
flames so great that firefighters might not be able to save the building.
Reports the following morning on the major networks were similar.  It was
not until the afternoon when reports began to emerge that, oh gee, it
wasn't the Cannery Building at all, but rather the building *next door*.  A
few days later I received an email from a supplier who has a retail outlet
in the Cannery Building assuring one and all that early reports were
incorrect, their building was almost totally undamaged, and they were quite
open for business.

If a massive news foul-up like that can affect AP, Reuters, ABC, CBS, NBC
-- and God knows who else -- in San Francisco on an ordinary day, just
imagine how thoroughly screwed up reporting can get in the middle of a war.

I strongly believe that most conspiracy theorists fail to recall that human
beings are all subjective reporters, no matter how hard they try to be
objective; also, people are just plain mistaken much of the time.  M<any
times, people aren't really trying to pull the wool over the eyes of
others; they themselves just don't know or understand what's happening.
And it is not at all surprising that Al Jazeera airs images and comments
not seen or heard on US television.  They are playing to their audience,
and our networks are playing to us.  Anything different would begin to
concern me.

I suggest if anyone really wants to have a much better idea of what's going
on, pay no attention to any individual reporting until at least 48 hours
have elapsed.  By then, it may be ironed out much better.  

73
John WA6QPL  SOC 263