Comments on: Information Sharing vs. Journalism

By: Journalism isn’t dead yet « Communicating With

Journalism isn’t dead yet « Communicating With — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:27:32 +0000

[...] author Heather Whaling wrote about this topic in a very well-written post. She commented that journalism of the highest order takes time, and in the wake of the coverage of [...]

By: Heather Whaling

Heather Whaling — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:45:01 +0000

Debbie, thanks for stopping by and adding your perspective!

By: Heather Whaling

Heather Whaling — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:42:31 +0000

Angela, thanks for adding your thoughts. You’re right, as PR people, we still need to work to earn the trust of the media and make sure that we’re providing accurate, verifiable information.

While the majority of people watching CNN weren’t also monitoring a Twitter stream, CNN has come under fire (even from the NY Times) for being so slow to confirm Jackson’s death. Your point is valid — the ongoing coverage *is* more important than who breaks news first. But, this is twice in just over two weeks (first with running Larry King reruns instead of Iran election coverage) that CNN has been dinged for sub-par coverage. I wonder if these are two blips or if it is a pattern? If it’s a pattern, how will that shape where people get their news?

Thanks again for chiming in!

By: Debbie Friez

Debbie Friez — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:34:39 +0000

Thanks for the revealing post, and I agree with Angela. Especially now, journalists need to show they get the stories right, and are not just spreading rumors.

By: Angela Kendall

Angela Kendall — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:10:52 +0000

P.S. — Heather, I love this blog — keep it coming! And what is up with that weird GIF on my post — gotta change that!

By: Angela Kendall

Angela Kendall — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:09:22 +0000

I believe that journalism now has a far greater responsibility to focus on the quality of news, not the speed of delivery or quantity. The “scoop” is not so important these days. And let’s face it, I don’t think people have developed an allegiance to a news source because it is always “first” to report a story in years. The five minute difference between ABC getting the news that a plane had flown into the World Trade Center made no difference in public selection of who to watch during the hundreds of hours of coverage following. The difference was made in the QUALITY of VERIFIABLE information coming as fast as possible. I think people — on that day, during this year’s elections and even, yes, in the aftermath of Michael Jacksons passing even — ultimately settled not on the station/newsource that was first, but the one that they deemed trustworthy. Which raises an entirely different concern — news vs. agenda pushing in the media (i.e., do you trust the media source that is most objective or the one that supports your views?).

I think — on the news side, editors and producers would do well to let their journalism team know that they are supported in not being “first” but being most accurate. I think CNN was right in its approach in this case.

I think, as a PR professional, it then becomes so much more important for us to provide reporters with clarity of communication that is easily validated by their sources or three credible sources that we provide. Yes, we have to be fast, but we have to be so thorough that they can develop a trust that when we provide them “news” it truly is valid and supported.

That is the new journalistic ethic as I see it.

By: Information Sharing vs. Journalism « Michael Jackson Is Dead : StarLogz.com

Information Sharing vs. Journalism « Michael Jackson Is Dead : StarLogz.com — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:09:09 +0000

[...] : Information Sharing vs. Journalism [...]