A Critique of the Boston Bombing News Coverage (Video)
David Coursey has spent a lot of his life as a journalist, specializing in IT coverage for most of it. He's written for ZDNet and eWeek, Forbes, and other well-known publications, and has had his stories linked from Slashdot more than a few times over the years. What he is not as well known for is his expertise as an EMT, a field he has been in as both a volunteer and professional since the rocks in California (where he lives) were still soft enough that the Flintstones used them as pillows. He and I were chatting on Facebook yesterday, and I realized that David's views on media coverage of the recent Boston Marathon bombings might be worth sharing. Do you think what he's saying is valid? Do you agree or disagree with him? Or some of each?
Just wondering if all you MSM types can get off your 24/7 cycle and stop going over and over and over this.
My cousin is home from the hospital and her two knee surgeries, and the FBI has the shrapnel from her leg.
K, thanks.
P.S.: Most of my family is NOT WATCHING your coverage. At all.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Where to begin...
The competition to get to the story first is too great and often over shadows the duty of the new to check facts and report an unbiased account of events.
What is missing is any sort of repercussions for reporting false facts, who do we hold accountable? Unfortunately good news simply does not pull in the desired ratings and ad revenues.
No sig here...
Can we get a story critiquing the critiques of news coverage? Then a round of critiques of those? How do I know which critique to pay attention to when the critique critiques aren't out yet?
Learn to love Alaska
That's because the second half of that sentence is effectively the important one. It's difficult to tell if a report is the facts. But it's easy to tell if it's first.