Comments on: The NYT and “real-time news”

By: New York Times: Get it right before you get it first « Virtualjournalist

New York Times: Get it right before you get it first « Virtualjournalist — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:20:04 +0000

[...] Journalism Lab, saw the gaffe and subsequent reader reaction as a case of news business “evolving online in real time“: But to me, the Kennedy story evolved exactly as many stories evolve in real-time online. [...]

By: Are you deep enough? | Mojo Evolution

Are you deep enough? | Mojo Evolution — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:35:06 +0000

[...] On Nieman Journalism Lab, you can also read this interesting story about truth versus speed. So maybe a part of Bradshaws model should take this aspect in consideration also. It then seems [...]

By: MichaelJ

MichaelJ — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 03:39:48 +0000

I think the unrecognized problem is the notion of “breaking news.” NYTimes reporting on Gov Paterson’s speech on the budget was awful. The focus was on the politics instead of what was said. The only way I could figure what the man said was to get an online transcript. Take about 15 minutes to do a cut and paste.

Meanwhile the NYTimes told me the political implications. Frankly, who cares, except for journalists in the bubble of the industry.

I just watched President Obama’s press conference. The talking heads focused on the “political’ implications. What does it mean about the Republicans v the Democrats and blablablalbla.How is he going to sell it. Meanwhile, the journalists i’ve seen tell me it is so big and complicated.

I may have missed it but I still have yet to see a real description of the real effects of the “meltdown” and the “stimulus” package on a regional basis.

Meanwhile, The “mortgage crisis” only effects some regions of the country. Which jobs are being lost? Which industries in what parts of the country are hit hardest? Which regions are relatively unaffected?
What is the role of freelancing v corporate jobs?
How much of what we are looking at is a structural change in employment patterns of multi-national corporations?

I could go on. And probably piece together a picture by searching the internets.

But why can’t I find a couple of good stories answering these kinds of questions in a paper?

Maybe I missed it. But if I haven’t, why is anyone worried about the Kennedy flap? Just to run after “breaking news?”

By: John D.

John D. — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 03:30:56 +0000

I don’t think many of us would deny the advantages of real-time reporting. It delivers information to hungry readers as it unfolds, and it allows reports to incorporate user feedback into a story much more quickly than the print cycle.

But Hoyt is right: the pressure to be first (or a close second) in the internet age can drive good reporters and editors to make poor choices. In this case, that pressure contributed to a decision to circumvent the Times’ normal policies and publish (mis)information without properly vetting it. It’s good that these errors were corrected before the next day’s print edition, but they shouldn’t have occurred in the first place. Speed shouldn’t be a license to relax reporting standards.

The Times could have published what was well established (that Kennedy had taken her name out of consideration) without including anonymously-sourced, unsubstantiated explanations as to why. An hour or two of additional reporting might have revealed the error before it was ever presented as fact.

By: Shawn Petriw

Shawn Petriw — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:51:33 +0000

On Sausage: What’s the difference between publishing a story one day, only to correct it the next day’s (or late) edition, and publishing one hour, only to correct it the next?

Speed is the only difference.

So now we see sausage made over a period of hours rather than days. It’s still sausage, and always has been.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:15:27 +0000

Thanks, Henry. I’m not suggesting that newspapers like the Times should run with every rumour — I’m just saying that there isn’t anything necessarily wrong with reporting something, then correcting and/or updating it as new information becomes available. Newswires do it all the time.

And you don’t have to call me “Mr. Ingram,” by the way — Mathew is fine :-)

By: Henry Goldman

Henry Goldman — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:55:07 +0000

Readers should not be exposed to “sausage being made” when they seek truthful facts. I don’t want to see the news media — particularly those who hold themselves out as serious and reliable — rushing to spout the latest rumor. It would be much more responsible to refrain from publishing such gossipy tidbits from sources who insist on anonymity than to engage in a headlong rush to disseminate them. If Mr. Ingram hungers for this kind of thing, perhaps he should consider going to work for a sausage factory.

By: The NYT and “real-time news”

The NYT and “real-time news” — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:22:55 +0000

[...] the rest of this post at the Nieman Journalism Lab blog) [...]