Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
‘Here’s the truth. We don’t know’: How false reports of Boston bombing…
‘Here’s the truth. We don’t know’: How false reports of Boston bombing arrest left media outlets scrambling
New York
April 17, 2013
-
-
Play devils advocate, what opposing view could be expressed?
-
News can always be given an editor's note or correction after it has been reported. Viewers and readers who care about facts should know to check for that later.
Waiting to report on a story could put others in danger or could cause others to be unaware of a situation near or around where they are located.
What is your opinion about the issue, and what caused you to form that opinion?
Journalistic integrity is extremely important, especially today when news can be consumed as it is taking place.
If news organizations wants to comment on or report 'breaking news' as it is developing then they need to ensure what they are reporting is accurate and factual.
If a news outlet no longer concerns themselves with an accuracy first mentality, then that outlet should no longer cover breaking stories and should stick to reporting things after they have happened.
-
The way major news outlets handle situations, such as the Boston Bombing, is concerning and leads more people to reading, watching, and listening to alternative media sources.
As someone that previously pursued journalism it causes me to take ethics and facts in reporting very seriously.
How could using a balance in research and reporting tactics have made a difference in the outcome of what was reported?
Having multiple primary sources available to double, and even triple, check something before reporting would have helped.
-
Simply waiting to report things until after they were verified would have made this outcome very different.