The media's race to be first

 Not long ago, when a breaking news story hit, there were deadlines. If a reporter got the story done by 5 pm it'd make the 6 pm news. If they got the story in by midnight, it might make the next day's paper. But there was a set cutoff time -- and the reporter had until that deadline to gather as much information as possible before the story was due.

There are no deadlines any more. With the development of the internet, there is no need for deadlines. Every minute is a deadline, because when breaking news hits, the information is now available almost instantly around the internet.

If a news source wants to lead on breaking news, every minute counts - -because being late will hurt the number of page views, and thus, the number of advertising dollars the media outlet gets.

And in the rush to be first, digging for truth and accuracy have taken a back seat.

The chart up above is the Google tracking chart of the number of media outlets that covered last week's story about the fatal dog attack in Memphis.

In the first hour of the 'news' being available, media outlets rushed to be first. The news of "pit bulls'  attack man" hit the media and spread quickly. Within an hour, 150 media outlets could lay claim to being on top of breaking news.

Then, in the next 5 days, the majority of the media outlets were no longer interested. Those next 5 days featured information about the events that led up to the attack.

- A dog owner who had an extensive criminal history

-  Dogs that had been loose and aggressive only two days earlier, but were left in the home

- Police hauling the dog's owner to jail, leaving the dogs behind to live in the home with no supervision

- A woman who let the dogs out - -even while knowing they were aggressive -- because a plummer needed to get into the apartment

-  Acknowledgment that police may or may not have ever called animal control about the dogs -- and even if they had, animal control is running 800 calls behind in their responses so may not have had time' to deal with the issue regardless.

Nope, once that information came out, there was little interest from most media outlets. They were too busy being "first" on something else -- likely with equally shoddy details.

This case in Memphis is far from isolated. The chart on the left is the media reporting of the fatal attack in Concord, CA.

Look familiar?

In the California case, the media equally reported only the initial "what" -- but few came back to hit on the "why's" that came out in the subsequent days.

We're all the victims in this -- because the majority of the media outlets hit a few glossy facts and moves on. We get little information that would be valuable in our quest to actually know the circumstances that led to the event.

Circumstances are important  -- in fact, they are the most important part of serious dog attacks. Unfortunately, in the race to be 'first', the media often just skips the time needed to get to the why. And as a society, we often become more ignorant as to why dogs bite, and why attacks occur.

This is why we should rely on experts (who understand canine behavior) and not just media reports and people who make irrational recommendations based on them when dealing with issues pertaining to dog bites and how to prevent them.

Because in their race to be first, the media often gets it wrong -- and often without complete information.

And if we want to get it right, we should focus on all of the information that is available -- not on knee jerk reactions based on initial media exploitation in attempts to gain eyeballs.

Meanwhile, for the media, take note. There seems to be a big place of differentiation for those who are more concerned about getting it right vs those who only seek to get there first. The internet has allowed everyone to get there 'first', but few appear to be willing to stick with it and get it right.

Comments

[Nokillhouston]

Excellent article. This makes a lot of sense. However, I've also found I can hand them all the the "whys" on a silver platter and still sometimes can't get them to report the entire truth.

[YesBiscuit!]

We miss you Walter Cronkite.

[PetDocsOnCall09]

Another great post Brent...

Unfortunately, addressing Nokillhouston's concern, most media outlets do have an agenda and so your comment about "handing them the "whys" " is very valid. Their agenda might be as simple as gaining more views or viewers (readers) and thus important details (like the "whys") will get glossed over in the interest of sensationlism. Other times, the reporter may have the agenda and will only be looking for a quote that can be spun in the wrong direction.

Sadly, we, the news reading public, are to blame for this. We don't care enough about the "good" stories of the day to make it worthwhile for the news to focus on them. We eagerly gobble up sensational stories and ask for more. Like Brent said, many people don't ask the right questions and therefore, the stories are allowed to fade away, even when the initial story was less than accurate.

We can change this by utilizing social media to question these stories (as Brent does every day). Repost blogs like this, discuss how things went awry and make sure you use the name of the paper or the station that aired the original story. Eventually, when enough people had questioned their news gathering abilities, that media outlet will do a search on themselves and see the errors that they have made!

[Amber]

Just received this great blog article about this very subject by a reporter with the Denver Post. I'm passing it along to you because I hope more people will read it:

http://blogs.denverpost.com/fetch/2010/07/18/the-media-takes-its-lumps-over-reporting-about-pit-bulls/

[H Houlahan]

Outstanding!

[Nokillhouston]

PetDocsOnCall09, I know media mostly want the sensationalistic stories, but even when I provide these stories regarding our local animal control facility (BARC), it seems that they mostly only report what the city's spin doctor says---most of the time this information is FAR from the truth. For instance, I sent out a press release regarding a dog that entered BARC with a severe head/eye injuries. Rescuers were BEGGING to take her out of BARC to get her to a specialist. BARC would not let her leave and instead planned surgery to remove her eyes even though they did not have proper equipment. A reporter read my press release on air (I recognized my words) but did not contact me for more information. They instead interviewed the city's PR person who lied, and some other woman who had absolutely nothing to do with the story other than seeing it online. (BTW: The dog died after surgery--and the 3 rescuers who tried to save her were banned from BARC).

The same thing happened when we got the media involved in the story about the pet adoption facility that the city plans to waste $12 million on (in a remote location--bad for adoptions; also in a flood plain; next to a sewer treatment facility; on land where protected birds live--it will destroy their nesting grounds; and a city council member was lying and threatening people in the neighborhood). The reporter didn't show any of my interview and only showed the city's dog and pony show. Ugh.

This is why I started writing for Examiner.com. At least I can write the entire truth about what is really going on here.