Lack of Information — Because this happened in a country that isn’t known for terrorist activity, the reason behind the attacks wasn’t immediately clear. The identity of the person responsible also took hours to emerge. The lack of specific, credible information should have been a warning sign to the press: be wary of speculation. Hold back. In fact, it helped lead to speculation. People on cable news had to fill time. Online newsrooms need to keep offering new information and context. Everyone wanted to hear more about what was happening in Norway, yet the central question—who did it?—could not be answered. So some in the press attempted to provide just enough of a tease to keep people watching and reading and listening.
Personal Beliefs — This is valid for all of us, in that personal beliefs and convictions can impact any story we report. It’s particularly true for the pundits and experts trotted out by many of the cable news programs. Bias can and does play a role when it comes to a situation like this. Combine this with the element of Recent History and some people are not going to be able to contain themselves.
Need to Feed the Beast — It’s a recipe for disaster when you have the above situation because it inevitable combines with this factor to create an environment ripe for speculation. In today’s real-time news and information environment, the need to constantly fill air time, add updates and push a story forward leads to speculation and, too often, incorrect claims. Our need for speed, to feed the hunger out there for the latest information, becomes very risky when there simply isn’t enough credible information.
Competitive Drive —Everyone wants to beat the competition. We venerate the scoop, celebrate our firsts. And if someone at a competing news organization has a piece of information that you don’t, you’re going to try an take their nugget of info and push it one step further. It’s a vicious cycle and it plays out in every major news event. When it works, it leads to scoops and important revelations. When it doesn’t, it leads to mistakes and harm.
Any other factors I missed? Please share them in the comments.
Correction of the Week
“Our article of May 7 2011 “8st kick-boxing WPC scares off thugs” included a photograph said to be that of Richard Chadwick who was convicted of an attack on six people in Leeds, including bursting into one home and threatening to kill the occupant’s baby. The photograph was actually of Mark O’Brien who has no connection to this offence whatsoever.” — Daily Express (U.K.)
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