Comments on: Professional baloney

By: Erica

Erica — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 06:59:15 +0000

Remember when CNN rushed to judgment and reported that Al Gore beat Bush in the 2000 election? And remember all the embarrassment CNN was under when they had to then retract the story and announce Bush as the winner? That was the primary reasoning behind CNN’s cautiousness with announcing MJ’s death; plus, out of respect for the family, CNN probably had to wait until they were given the okay to release the information. If competition was an issue, I think it was a minor one (though of course online media is a sore spot for “traditional” journalists). Interesting post!

By: eric

eric — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:09:06 +0000

I’m a little late to this party, Arthur, but as the spouse of someone who runs an entertainment website, the instantaneous nature of the news business is what has changed the landscape. This kind of issue first came to the forefront with another untimely death, Heath Ledger’s.

At the moment the reports started coming in, much information was thrown about the web, including something along the lines of was one of the Olsen twins involved, whereas it turned out he was only renting their apartment.

Ultimately the big question in journalistic circles remains, is it better to be first or is it better to be right? And also being old enough to remember a time with only three networks (and a newspaper reader) perhaps you know where I lean.

In this most recent story, TMZ was willing to go out on a limb and be wrong with news of MJ’s death, CNN wasn’t. Now in knowing you have a pro like Blitzer (however boring sometimes) to rif for three hours to milk the story, I’m sure CNN didn’t feel the need to jump on the TMZ bandwagon - especially interesting since they are owned by the same company.

But again, there are those who want access to information regardless of where it comes from - look at any tabloid and see what their “sources” say - and others, like me, who’d rather get the real story, even if it takes a lot longer…

By: Jeff Miller

Jeff Miller — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:38:28 +0000

I think you’ve hit on the biggest problem with CNN and their ilk–they aren’t in the news business, they’re in the entertainment business. If you have a 24/7 time slot to fill, you need to drag out every story to fill as much time as possible, and the more sensational the story, the more it is gets strung out. Bad-mouthing your competition is all part of the game.
In CNN’s defense, other media, going back to the dawn of media, aren’t immune from the same. The muckracking journals of the 1800’s, as well as the Hearst papers of the early 1900’s, weren’t any better.

By: Thomas Pellechia

Thomas Pellechia — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:23:38 +0000

Arthur,

When I was on the road as a salesman I learned that the weakest argument for selling what I had to sell was to knock the competition. That works both ways.

Yet, I agree with the meat of your post, which is that all media is commercial. I’m old enough to remember when TV promised to be a revolution in information dissemination–we know where that media has taken us.

The jury is not out yet on so-called social media. So far, it seems like commercial manipulation and misinformation compete well with information in the blogging and social networking world. Don’t forget that circulating on Twitter recently have been reports of the death of Harrison Ford and Jeff Goldblum, neither of which have died.

It’s entirely possible in the Jackson case that the hospital, police, etc, were not releasing information to the press and the mainstream press’ inclination is not to pass on potential rumors (not that it always succeeds) because as soon as they are caught doing it, the media is once again labeled irresponsible, and often by bloggers.