“Initial reporting on the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat from Arizona’s Eighth District, was riddled with the kind of quick-to-judgment errors that often flow in the aftermath of mass shootings and disasters,” CJR’s Joel Meares reported Sunday, following the Saturday shooting spree in Tucson. Poynter and Regret the Error’s Craig Silverman both carried timelines and summaries of the early coverage.
NPR was the first to pronounce Giffords dead. The error (committed by other outlets as well) spread through the media, but was quickly corrected. An apologetic note from NPR’s executive editor, Dick Meyer, explained that:
The information we reported came from two different governmental sources, including a source in the Pima County Sheriff’s Department. Nonetheless, in a situation so chaotic and changing so swiftly, we should have been more cautious. There were, obviously, conflicting reports from authorities and other sources. The error we made was unintentional, an error of judgment in a fast-breaking situation. It was corrected immediately. But we deeply regret the error.
Already all of us at NPR News have been reminded of the challenges and professional responsibilities of reporting on fast-breaking news at a time and in an environment where information and misinformation move at light speed. We learn, we redouble our efforts and dedication and move forward with our best efforts for the millions who rely on us every day.
Meyer’s nostra culpa was reasoned and thoughtful, and media critics like The New York Times’s David Carr also suggested that pundits consider the pressures on journalists covering breaking, crisis situations. Nonetheless, the question remains: How can outlets like NPR “redouble” their efforts to improve accuracy “in an environment where information and misinformation move at light speed?” Are errors like those that followed the shooting preventable, or will they always be an unfortunate byproduct of our 24/7 media world?
Wouldn't revealing the names of the sources be the right thing to do now that they broke their end of the verbal contract by providing false information?
I was just outside of Tucson when that happened. KOLD 13 News, Tucson, insisted that they couldn't confirm the death, while two other news outlets in southern Arizona used anonymous sources to spread the information even after news outlets confirmed she was still alive.
NY Times, like KOLD, wouldn't confirm and I really appreciate that, not only a young reporter, but as a Tucson-area local.
#1 Posted by Daniel Woolfolk, CJR on Tue 11 Jan 2011 at 01:40 PM
I'm glad to hear that NPR's error was "unintentional," but I'm not sure I see how it could be prevented without abandoning the effort to break news. Having two different government sources is generally considered reliable sourcing. But if your sources are wrong -- and in a situation like this, somebody's sources are going to be wrong -- then you'll be wrong, too.
The alternative is just to abandon the effort to break news and wait for official statements. In this case, I don't actually see much social loss from that -- we were all going to know within a matter of hours whether Giffords had lived or died, just like we're getting regular updates from her doctors now. But that would be very much against standard journalistic practice.
#2 Posted by Greg Marx, CJR on Tue 11 Jan 2011 at 03:52 PM
Unintentional inaccurate early reports will always happen, and they are not preventable. Viewers know that.
The opposite, reporter paralysis, will also occur.
I remember during the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens in Washington State, reporters could be found standing in the middle of dense ash falls, with the ground shaking all around them, complaining that they "could not get any information." They meant that they could not get any official information anointed by local government officials.
Viewers and readers know these things, and will take account of them.
#3 Posted by Joyce Boles, CJR on Tue 11 Jan 2011 at 05:50 PM
There's one straightforward way to answer these questions. Essentially, we resist the idea of a 24/7 media world and the idea that information must move at light speed. That doesn't mean, though, as Greg Marx suggests, that we always abandon the effort to break news and wait for official sources. I have to admit, in the particular case of Giffords' shooting I don't see exactly how we'd get another idea of her condition, but how does it serve audiences to know immediately? What is the quantifiable benefit of being the first with information, particularly in light of a 24 hour news cycle that will include additional updates? This doesn't mean we shouldn't be fast or timely, just that we should be conscientious. Breaking news is important when it comes to uncovering a great ill, or describing a danger, or otherwise acting against a time pressure. There really is no meaning to being first when there is always another iteration of a story, though. What matters is how thoroughly and effectively you can present information.
To an extent, I agree with Joyce Boles that views and readers will take account of reporters difficulties getting information from officials. That doesn't excuse reporters all the time though, and we won't always have as easily observable information as Mt. St. Helens provided (or we'll be writing). As a society we should value those reporters who don't stop with what officials provide to them, but who will instead relay as much as they can on their own with official sanction and as reporters we should be striving to gather as much information as we can beyond press releases and statements until we get that information (granted, that doesn't help in the giffords case too much).
Fighting the 24/7 cycle while striving to tell each element of the story and not the official line is what will differentiate journalists, and, by doing so, what will help us define our value to the public.
#4 Posted by Bill Lascher, CJR on Tue 11 Jan 2011 at 10:49 PM
I vividly remember working the city desk on the night Bobby Kennedy was assassinated. It was election night in Los Angeles and we had all been working since 7 a.m. I had just headed home on the Santa Ana freeway, about 10 p.m. when the first news hit the radio. For the next 12 or so hours I ripped updates and bulletins off the wire machines, watching as nearly everyone in California Democratic politics was reported as dead, bleeding, calling in as safe or on the floor of the hotel kitchen having pounded the shooter, wrestled the shooter to the ground or taken a bullet in the chest themselves. I have copies of most of our rip and print editions of that night and the early morning and it will ever be clear to me that everyone was doing the best possible job under the circumstances. The battle is always between being as quick as the readers or listeners want versus pulling "real facts" from public officials whose jobs and futures were on the line. Slow down is the only real solution.
#5 Posted by Terry McLafferty, CJR on Wed 12 Jan 2011 at 04:33 PM