Why do journalists and news organizations exhibit such a lack of restraint when it comes to breaking news like last week’s events in Norway?
This is the question I’ve most frequently been asked in the week since the bloody attacks.
Many news organizations leapt to the conclusion that the bombing and shootings were the work of a jihadist terrorist group. The Wall Street Journal laid the blame in that direction in an editorial and then scrubbed away the evidence after it turned out to be incorrect. Rupert Murdoch’s The Sun went with the headline, “Al Qaeda Massacre: Norway’s 9/11.”
There are similar examples of early and incorrect accusations from places such as The Washington Post, The Daily Telegraph, and The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, who tied himself in knots offering an explanation as to how his post—“Jihadists did this in Norway because they could.”—was altered from its original.
Then there was cable news. Experts were trotted out to explain why jihadists have a problem with Norway, and why this looked like the work of Al Qaeda or a similar group. Sure, some anchors or hosts inserted disclaimers along the lines of, “We don’t know if it was Al Qaeda at this point.” Then they continued to bring forth the speculation…
In the vast majority of cases where incorrect information was disseminated, or when speculation turned to mistaken blame, there was no evidence or news that led to the blame. At one point a person posted on a jihadist message board to claim responsibility for the attacks, but the message was vague and lacked credibility. And then it was retracted. I recall very few news stories and reports about the retraction. In a similar vein, there have been few corrections or retractions related to the false claims about the perpetrator of the attacks in Norway.
Of those that appeared, my personal favorite came from Disinfo.com, which wrote:
This story was posted at a time when some portions of the media were reporting - incorrectly - that these acts were perpetrated by an Islamic group called “Helpers of the Global Jihad.”That was not the case, and it’s a lesson learned that one should not believe everything one reads on the disinformation website or, indeed, any other news source, including the New York Times, the source of the story. Read as many different sources as you can and then form your own opinion is never bad advice for us or anyone on this planet.
I don’t recall which news outlet was the first to report the culprit was in fact a Norwegian Christian. But I can easily conjure the names of news organizations who got it wrong. I’m of course predisposed to focus on mistakes. But I don’t think it’s a stretch to suggest that most members of the public are more likely to remember who screwed up rather than who got the scoop.
Why then do so many of us in the press push forward with baseless speculation in the face of breaking news?
I don’t have a single, perfect answer. There are, I think, several factors at play. None of them strike me as justifiable reasons.
Below are five factors I think caused journalists to jump to speculation in this example. Though the combination may be unique to this incident, these factors are often at play in breaking news situations.
Again, these are not excuses or justifications. Mostly I would call them the motives behind the crime of speculation.
Recent History — Thanks to 9/11 and subsequent terror attacks, Western media are likely to assume a terrorist bombing or similar attack is the work of a radical Islamic group. I will say up front that I don’t know whether a tally of the number of terrorist attacks over the last decade would show the majority have been carried out by jihadists. But this is a case where perception is what matters. Western journalists likely have to fight that perception in the early minutes and hours after an attack. It can be a powerful thing to try and contain or ignore while on air.
Yes. You have covered some of it, but you are too kind.
This: Most journalists are basically irresponsible. You see this kind of irresponsible behavior Every. Single. Time. there is breaking news, and it has gotten worse in the Twitter era.
First of all, journos can safely engage in wildly irresponsible reporting and opinion as long as their peers are doing the same. It takes a journo with cohones to step back and write something real, original, but against the prevailing narrative. Most journos are too insecure to do that, and lack the intellectual and analytical skills. In times of breaking news, most of them are parrots relying on political spin and what their peers are writing. Doing that keeps them safely within the beltway mainstream.
And too, one would think a journo's editor would have the wherewithal to say "Hold On! What's the source of this information?" But no. They are focused on their stories fitting the narrative, and they assign stories on that basis. Instead they say "New York Times is writing xxx. Why aren't you?" That, and how the story plays.
And unfortunately, for breaking news, the MOST irresponsible news organizations -- CNN, I'm looking at you -- the ones that go in full force with the most speculative, irresponsible and unsubstantiated rumors, are the ones who set the news narrative. And when have you ever seen CNN retract ANY bad information? Never, that's when. CNN never corrects their mistakes, so the wrong information persists in the public memory. It happens *almost* every single time.
Please show me where I am wrong.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 12:34 PM
Fox "News" politically-driven editorial policy "declared" the winner in the 2000 US Presidential election, after which other networks propagated the unsubstantiated fact due to Competitive Drive. I don't see any reason to call any Murdoch property "journalistic" in this day and age.
Also, recall Solomon Asch's experiment which asked subjects to determine which of three lines on a card is longest after fake subjects injected deliberately false judgments. The collegiality which discouraged disagreement with earlier though clearly incorrect answers may prevent journalists from challenging the conventional wisdom, as established by whoever was first to print.
#2 Posted by Jonathan, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 12:59 PM
On this story, Glenn Greenwald has emasculated CJR/MSM:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/23/nyt/index.html
(What else is new?)
#3 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 03:31 PM
And here's some more food for journalistic thought on the issue: "Anti-Blonde Racism."
#4 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 03:39 PM
Why does no one have the courage to either say it is not known who did it or what group he belonged to until 99% of all media writers and speakers end up with their collective foot in their mouth??? Media did the same with the Oklahoma bombing since someone--never said who--saw a person with dark hair. Why is it always "the other " that did something destructive. It can never be one of your own??? Criminals of all sorts are more likely to be ONE OF YOUR OWN than the outsider. Outsiders living in other communities often will keep quiet and try to avoid drawing attention to themselves--just for this reason. They are too often blamed for someone else's acts. That is true in Oklahoma, San Jose, CA, Seattle, Chicago, DC or New York to name just a few from here. Why would that be any different in other countries??? If you check history, destructive actions are much more likely to be from your own kind than from the outside. 9/11 is the exception, not the rule!!
#5 Posted by trish, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 07:32 PM
You forgot islamophobia, racism, xenophobia... Do you think that "recent history" of crimes committed by African Americans, Asians or Hispanics allows the media to jump to these conclusions based on your reasoning? No, those in the media don't because they are smarter than that because the repercussions could cost you your reputation and job. But bashing Muslims gets you ratings, elected and hey, even a book and column. And actually recent history says a white male was behind this... 95% of terrorist acts across the world are NOT committed by Muslims.
#6 Posted by A real journalist, CJR on Mon 1 Aug 2011 at 11:35 AM