Friday, March 23, 2007

Why it's better to be right than to be first...

It's happened before on the blogosphere where a story starts spreading and it turns out to not be quite as accurate as people first thought. The mistake that Politico made yesterday was enhanced by the media picking up on a blog post and running with it. It shows the power of the blogs and how easily this power could be abused. I truly understand the desire to be first, it gets you hits, creates fame and sky rockets your blog into that 15 minute of fame window. However, I'd prefer to be right...Interestingly enough this was part of the topic last night in a panel I participated in held by the University of Toledo's Society for Professional Journalism. It was used last night by members of the traditional media as an example of how blogs should not be trusted and how important it is to have more than one source. I can't really disagree on the aspect of you should have another source or at least make it clear that this story has not been confirmed by a second source...

Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post has more....

3 comments:

TLC said...

I always tell my journalism students to have more than one source. Anyone using Politico.com as a source yesterday should have checked with a second (or third) source before running the information.

To me, it does not matter if your source is a blog or a live person, always get confirmation on the information -- just in case the blog/source in question IS trying to make a name for him/herself or has their own agenda.

News oultlets like CNN, etc., should have known better than to just run with a story without proper confirmation -- there's no point being "first" if you aren't accurate.

Roland Hansen said...

I have read or heard somewhere recently that the vast majority of young adults have stated they get most of their news from The Daily Show with John Stewart.
And no, I am not joking.
And by the by, it is not uncommon anymore for the traditional media to be incorrect, inaccurate, and/or unbiased.

Roland Hansen said...

oops.
up above there, I meant "biased" rather than "unbiased."