Lousy journalism in the age of instant gratification

[debgeisler]

Slate posted a picture of some poor sucker's Facebook page claiming it belonged to the killer of kids. Eventually, the poor sucker, who shared a name with the elder brother of the killer, posted from a bus on the way home, saying he was alive and hadn't shot anyone. (I'd post the link, but Slate has apparently deleted it, because they don't like people to know they are fuckwits.)

Several different sources - allegedly professional news outlets (one I saw was Houston's Fox News station) - tweeted links to a Twitter account that was clearly the killer (still the name of the actual killer's elder brother), since he was posting stuff about being distressed. He started yesterday with 30 or so connections...he's now being followed by more than 5,000 lurkers.

Among the things that were incorrectly reported yesterday about this horrible event:

The killer did not kill his father first. His father and mother were divorced, and his father lived in another state. The killer killed his mother first.

The killer did not kill his mother in her classroom. His mother did not teach at that school. His mother has never taught at that school, not even as a substitute teacher, notes The New York Times.

See above, where the killer's elder brother's name was incorrectly released as the killer.

Reports yesterday claimed that everyone had been shot with handguns. The medical examiner today noted that rifle fire killed every victim. A semi-automatic rifle was found near the killer's body.

And blah, blah, blah.

Instant gratification? Screw that.

Get it right, or don't report it.

Comments

[calimac.livejournal.com]

Slate has acknowledged their fuckwitted action in a couple of articles, including this one. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/14/adam_lanza_ryan_lanza_facebook_original_reports_of_newtown_school_shooter.html) )I saw another one earlier, but can't find it right now.) Perhaps they just didn't want to let the innocent man suffer any more than necessary.

However, some of the other incorrect reporting you mention continues to go on at this page.

A friend of yours once denounced me for making unverifiable assumptions about people's motives, even though I labeled them as only possibilities. I wish you better luck at not being denounced for making assumptions about Slate's motives in deleting their erroneous post.

[dalesql.livejournal.com]

But the camera is on and pointing at me! I must say something that sounds authoritative and knowledgeable and wise and sincere. Or else they will cut away to someone else who is better at spouting news-babble than I! Then they will get the million dollar contract and the nice dressing room and the softball interviews with famous people! And we can't have that! So I will stay on the air repeating speculation and rumor as solid fact, interspersed with asking any good looking victim-like person in the vicinity how terrible they feel at this time, and otherwise keep on dancing in the metaphorical blood of the latest horrible tragedy.

Meanwhile the producers are lining up the spokespeople of all the agenda groups who think they can make political hay from the thing, and the opposing agenda groups who are gonna have to push back for their agenda.


pardon my sarcasm. And disgust.

[netmouse.livejournal.com]

Reportedly the killer was carrying his brother's ID, so there was at least a pretty good reason for the initial misidentification by police.

As for the rest of it? I have no idea why these stories get generated. But the reason they get passed on is simple; the system no longer encourages reporters to do any fact-checking, nor does it substantially punish people for reporting unsubstantiated rumor.

It's all about eyes-on-the-screen and adviews. Which is sad.