Wednesday, February 15, 2006

breaking news too soon...

How do your ethical news values stack up? Is accuracy really at the top?

I was thinking about the recent Cheney mishap of the quail hunting and how slow the news traveled. Cheney has been getting a lot of flack about the time it took for the news to be delivered to the media.

"I thought that made good sense because you can get as accurate a story as possible from somebody who knows and understands hunting," Cheney said. "Then it would immediately go up to the wires and be posted on the Web site, which is the way it went out. I thought that was the right call. I still do."

The extra time it took for this story to reach the public may have been worth it in my opinion, so far I haven't seen any discrepancies among the facts.
click here to read a full article of Cheney's mishap

On the other end of the spectrum we have the mining accident that made breaking news in January 2006 and was inaccurately reported. It is better to spend those few extra minutes to verify the facts and stick with accuracy as an ethical news value. click here to read about An Accident's Aftermath

1 comment:

mlwilson said...

I agree... I do not think that there is anything wrong with giving the story sometime to develop and make sure all of the facts are straight. I think that the mining story was horrible. How would you feel if you were one of the victims family members. I think that the news media should have gave the cirumstances of the story because that was a huge story, but I think the details of lives should have been left out. I am sure that the media was feeling the pressure from the public and wanted answers, but bottom line the media did not have the answers and should not have reported their response to the publics questions.