False news reports left trusted media outlets looking inaccurate and…
False news reports left trusted media outlets looking inaccurate and unreliable.
What balance could they have used to avoid this problem?
By presenting false facts, they left viewers worrying about what to trust regarding the topic.
No news is good news, despite the deadlines, presenting the fact that no one knows whats happening make it a lot easier to present the facts once they do actually come out.
Presenting what they knew for a fact is the biggest thing they could have done.
What's my opinion of the issue?
My opinions come from being in journalism and knowing how important it is to tell the truth and to remain silent if you don't have the facts from a credible source.
By not waiting, they ended up putting more work into taking things back
As a journalist, presenting false news that has no credible source is the worst thing a journalist could do.
What could a devil's advocate say to defend this?
The Police Department is to blame for not helping make press statements, leaving the press to draw their own conclusions.
The media's job is to report the information they currently have and they can make corrections later.
Getting information out can help keep the public calm.
What is my reaction to the issues that surfaced due to this?
The constant worry the police department had to deal with regarding the media may have taken away effort that would have gone into capturing the man.
This could have led to public panic and targeting of certain individuals.
It worries me that trusted media cared more about a story than the facts.
"How false reports of Boston bombing arrest left media scrambling"
The Associated Press | April 17, 2013
What led to this?
A sense of public urgency to make statements first and ask questions later.
A sense of competition between the news companies who all wanted to have the stories first.
Multiple news companies where claiming to have an official source.