Media Covereage of Ft Hood Shooting

[OldGreyEagle]

So, at vatious times yesterday there were "reports" of three shooters, one shooter with two accomplices, the shooter was shot and killed, there were 9 dead, 13, dead, more dead and less dead. The wounded count kept changing, while watching the late night press conference, while the guy giving the press conference was saying the shooter was alive, the scroll across the bottom of the screen said the shooter was shot dead.

 

In one way I don't blame the mistakes, it must have been a crazy terrifying scene as people tried to get a grip on themselves, the situation and all that was going on. What I have an issue with is the reporting. Why not say there are reports of people killed, but nothing is confirmed. What is the value of being first and being wrong? How important is it to the public to know exactly what is going on when no one is sure what is going on?

 

Will there be an investigation into the mis reporting? Will networks wonder why no body trusts their news?

[Apache Bob]

I have yet to hear anywhere in the media that a radical muslim terrorist killed soldiers in Fort Hood Tx. Why?

Or is just everyone being political correct.

[CalicoPenn]

Maybe because you aren't listening to right wing radio, or watching Fox News.

 

 

[John-in-KC]

Because it's going to take time for CID and the FBI to make that call. Even then CID may keep that close hold, because this guy is already convicted in the court of public opinion.

 

Those who matter in Army leadership also need to look at how military socialization, especially for a Medical Corps officer, was overcome by other factors.

[Twocubdad]

Because that's the state of TV journalism, OGE. It is better to be first that to be right.

 

Unfortunately, news consumers are getting what they ask for. When I took journalism in college, there was a debate about balancing the news people want vs. the news they need. Apparently that debate has been settled in favor of the wants. When something big is going on, folks turn the TV on and flip between all the news channels looking to see which channel has the latest speculati--- um, news. The networks have done the math and know which side of their toast is buttered. If you turn on CBS for an update and they've gone back to "As the World Turns" waiting for confirmation of the facts, you change the channel. In an emergency or "breaking news" situation, people would rather listen to a talking head blathering on with any rumor or speculation than they would wait for solid, confirmed news. And the networks are going to give you what you want.

 

God bless you Uncle Walter, where ever you are!

[Kahuna]

I live in Orlando and was listening to the radio yesterday when they started covering the shootings downtown. For an hour, the reports were that 13 were transported with some in cardiac arrest and two bodies at the scene. Now we know it was one body a lot less injured.

 

They just feel compelled to get out the latest news and obviously there is going to be a lot confusion. Our local stations, of course, had to get out the word the the interstate running through downtown was a parking lot so that people wouldn't end up in it.

 

As said above, it's what the public demands.

[CalicoPenn]

The public doesn't demand it - corporate profits demand it. The media love to claim they're only giving the public what it wants - and they make that claim by stating that the public is tuning in to the pablum they're feeding us so therefore that must be what we want.

 

The media delivers what the media wants to deliver - and since most of the media outlets deliver the same pablum at the same time, if you do want hard news, you have to sit through the pablum. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. The media shows some stupid story about Paris Hilton, we don't bother to change the channel (because it doesn't matter - the other guys are telling the same story), and therefore that means that's what we demand.

 

The driving force isn't the public - its the so-called 24-hours news cycle - all news, all the time, that is the result of cable news networks. When 911 happened, we were treated to a continuing loop of the twin towers being hit and then falling - over and over and over again. Why? Because there was nothing else to talk about. Any talking was pure speculation by so-called "experts" brought on to talk through larger periods of non-information. Unfortunately, the cable news model has infected network news too (and network news is still where most people who watch news get their information - cable news network ratings combined don't even match the lowest rated network news program). At one time, we would have heard "We interrupt this program for a special news bulletin", the interruption would have been for 10 to 20 minutes, and then we would have been "returned to regularly scheduled programming, already in progress". The last time I heard that was in coverage of the Challenger Disaster. Networks now feel they have to cover it non-stop because the cable news networks are covering it non-stop, and the cable news networks are covering it non-stop because they frankly have nothing else to do. The saga of Balloon Boy?? Are you kidding me? This didn't merit the coverage it got - and we never demanded it - it's just something ongoing that the news media could cover live. Other notable non-events - the chase of a white Bronco containing OJ, and the return of Michael Jackson to his Neverland Ranch after being found not guilty.

[Kahuna]

You'll never convince me that a culture that watches reality TV doesn't gobble up all this stuff. You do have a point about the media though: it is pretty self-involved.