As journalists started covering chaos at the Empire State Building on social media, some started covering the coverage
After a lone gunman allegedly killed a former colleague in the vicinity of New York’s Empire State Building on Friday morning, journalists and bystanders quickly began covering the event via social media. Just as quickly, other tweeters attempted to police that coverage, urging discretion and accuracy.
Some of that reaction is Storified below; additions welcome in the comments.
Woman’s work - The twisted reality of an Italian freelancer in Syria
Sourcing Trayvon Martin ‘photos’ from stormfront - Not a good idea, Business Insider
Elizabeth Warren, the antidote to CNBC - The senator schools the talking heads on bank regulation
Art Laffer + PR blitz = press failure - The media types up the retail lobby’s propaganda
Reuters’s global warming about-face - A survey shows the newswire ran 50 percent fewer stories on climate change after hiring a “skeptic”
In one tweet
Luke Russert is the Golden Boy of DC
And it drives young journalists crazy
It’s official: We never need to worry about the future of journalism again!
The NYT shows us why
Why does Florida produce so much weird news? Experts explain
CJR's Guide to Online News Startups
ACEsTooHigh.com – Reporting on the science, education, and policy surrounding childhood trauma
Who Owns What
The Business of Digital Journalism
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.
When you say they tried to "police that coverage", do you mean they started firing indiscriminately at everyone nearby?
#1 Posted by Tom T., CJR on Sat 25 Aug 2012 at 12:35 AM
More seriously, the problem with the media's coverage was reporting this as a "mass shooting," when in fact the shooter killed one person and the police shot a bunch of others.
#2 Posted by Tom T., CJR on Sat 25 Aug 2012 at 12:53 AM
The coverage in the print New York Times today is illuminating, even if some issues remain undeveloped.
I would have examined the New York Police Academy website carefully for Training Bureau tactical training in firearms.
The NYT, strangely, seemingly did not do so at all, as if it had not occurred to the reporters.
The Police Academy website is poorly written and unenlightening.
Every police recruit should engage in two full years of training (and education) so as to develop good professional judgment. Since judgment is an important subject in cognition, the police should have to master the best introductory text, "Cognition," by Mark Ashcraft.
The Police Academy website is prelinguistic, as if judgment and language were separate.
There are some flaws in The NYT's coverage, most related to the beginnings and endings of articles.
At the end of the lead story: --Mr. Asika said he had been shot by a police officer. Asked how he felt about that, he said, "I guess, you know, stuff happens."
Really? In "For 2 Officers, Decision to Open Fire in Busy Midtown Leaves Bystanders Wounded," Asika said that "they have to be a little more careful when they are aiming the gun at the suspect and not hit the innocent victims."
One editor should read all the coverage twice to pick up such discrepancies.
The front page office grudge story inaccurately tagged Johnson as a Willy Loman, and mysteriously failed to follow up on the management implications of letting such a sour relationship fester.
Ercolino himself had patently mismanaged the relationship, and stupidly made a death threat. As if he owned the whole city.
Nonetheless, what irks me about the coverage in The NYT might seem trivial: "BYSTANDERS SHOT Officers had to make a snap decision on whether to fire in Midtown."
"Had to make" fatalism does not cut it. Johnson could not have expected anything but death in drawing his gun on the cops.
However, the wild firing was unnecessary and dangerous.
The cops should have separated, tried to get a little better angle on him, and fired with better control and precision.
"Once Again, World Icon A Backdrop To Violence" noted that the Empire State Building "added surveillance equipment that can track people inside the building and on the surrounding streets," but not in real time, apparently, or reactions are painfully slow.
#3 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Sat 25 Aug 2012 at 02:36 PM
Cynthia, The experts have obviously not studied the video dispassionately. They are just reacting emotionally to justify their own attitudes.
After some confusion, the cops wisely separated in different planes, with the cop on the left of the screen from my point of view in excellent position to take Johnson out.
The other cop should have waited and let it play out.
The cop on the left was close enough, with a commanding position, with no obstacles, to fire two killing shots. No more would have been needed. Can you tell me precisely how far this cop was from Johnson?
It should have been clear that Johnson was committing suicide by cop. Otherwise, he would have been firing rapidly.
It feels good for use of force experts to offer blanket justifications for reckless behavior. It stirs the testosterone.
But it is reckless. Members of their own families could be killed by bad practice.
Clayton Burns PhD Vancouver.
#4 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 12:11 PM
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:
CFagen2@nypost.com
The recipient's mailbox is full and can't accept messages now. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please try resending this message later, or contact the recipient directly.
#5 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 12:20 PM