In media and media law circles, there is a smoldering conversation
about the role of the media. This line of questioning is essentially a
crisis of identity, as many media consumers have begun to utilize
non-media sources as stand-ins for the so-called mainstream media.
There are any number of reasons why this changeover is occurring,
including accusations of bias and Hollywood-centric reporting, a
growing dependence on wire reports and the consumers’ infatuation with
new media tools like social media and social networks. I make no
judgement abut why or to what extent this crisis of identity is
happening, I just note that it is. Many ask, where does the media fit
in a world where anyone can make, break or fabricate news for,
essentially, no cost?
Some reactionary media types have struck out against the new media
encroachment by demonizing the toolset, competence and, in some cases,
motivations of members of this new media. They seek to deny the
benefits of being labeled as members of the media (and yes, there are
tangible, positive benefits to being part of the
they make snide remarks about bloggers living in basements, and
frankly, Jude Law’s portrayal of a blogger in the movie, Contagion,
didn’t help much either (some of my colleagues who know of my blogging
even snickered at me!).
As a blogger I’ve felt these stings but never doubted that, venom
aside, they were making a good point. I am not the media. I don’t
have the resources to place events in proper, larger context. I don’t
employ editors to make sure my grammar-esque blogging makes any sense.
I don’t have fact checkers and folks “on the ground” to verify what’s
going on (that is, unless, you see bloggers as some sort of hive mind
who, through the process of
hit-or-miss-10,000-monkeys-and-typewriters, we eventually get it
right). The mainstream media does. That’s the role they fulfill. They
are the wizened conscience of information collection, packaging and
Well, the events of the last week or so have got me wondering about
the identity of the media. The specific event that caused my crisis is
something that everyone in PR, crisis communication and media circles
has to have heard of already, former Penn State football coach Joe
Paterno’s death from lung
Now, Coach Paterno’s death would’ve been national news in any case,
but with the stain of former Assistant Coach Jerry Sandusky’s
indictment on child abuse charges and Coach Paterno’s subsequent
mid-season firing brought the media attention to fever pitch. His
death would be above the fold across the nation. And as word spread
that Coach Paterno’s health was rapidly fading, Happy Valley,
Pennsylvania swarmed with members of the press.
On the afternoon and evening of Saturday, January 21, everything came
to a head. Reports from all kinds of sources noted that the Coach was
likely on death’s doorstep and it was just a matter of time. Then a
local college newspaper, Onward State,
issued a report via Twitter that Coach Paterno had passed.
And then all hell broke
(Seriously, go to that link. It’s that good.)
And now you see my crisis. CBS Sports is a paragon of reporting. And
yet they trumpeted a single, unsourced report from a news outfit that
99.9% of Americans have never heard of to millions of news seekers
anxiously awaiting that specific report. And they never even gave
attribution to Onward State so that others could follow up and confirm
the report. Just, he’s dead. And other news outlets that had learned
to trust CBS Sports duly passed along those reports. I mean, why
wouldn’t you? They’re the (big M) media!
In the aftermath of the premature declaration and the subsequent
ass-covering, the Poynter
issued a number of articles reviewing the situation and assigning
blame about a truly shameful
They chide CBS Sports for pursuing gotcha journalism in a situation
when respect and exactness was called for. CBS did what they accuse
bloggers of doing.
And you know what? At some level, I’m okay with that. If that’s the
kind of journalism an outfit like CBS Sports feels they should
practice, that’s the kind of journalists they’ll be. There’s nothing I
can do about it. But it makes me think about how I should approach the
media, both as a private media consumer and a professional media
interacter. If the rush to “first” is more important to than the rush
to “right,” then maybe I shouldn’t take any first report as gospel,
no matter if it comes from a respected member of the media or some
yahoo off the street. (Because sometimes even the yahoo gets it
right.) It’s more work for me, as a PIO and as a media consumer, but
it ensures that the messages I push out and receive are right. That
was one of the greatest benefits of the professional media: 100%
correct, verified truth.
Some news organizations have realized that their role in the expansive
media universe is becoming more specialized. In fact, the Poynter
Institute makes an extended reference to the stance that AP took in
both the Gabby Giffords’ shooting and Coach Paterno
“At every juncture we have a trigger point that says, ‘Are we ready to file this? Do we have the sourcing? Are we going to make the decision to tell millions of people this?’” Anthony said.
Nothing would go out until those questions were answered to everyone’s satisfaction.
AP believes that the value they add to news reporting is correct,
sourced information, 100% of the time. That’s why you pay for AP
wire reports, because you can trust that they are perfect. That’s
their business model; that’s why they’re better than bloggers.
That’s (big M) media.
(PS. You really should read the linked article about the AP, if only
for the “Applying a lesson from Giffords” section about how constant,
present messaging further strengthens one’s overall messaging.)