TED Conversations

Robert Winner


This conversation is closed.

Media breaking news reports.

The United States has just had a school shooting incident at a elementary school. As in the case of the Colorado shooting the media made initial assessments, some right and some wrong, that went on for hours and interviews with students and those in the know. Links to the Tea Party, and all sorts of claims went on the air with absolutely no proof or even foundation.

There is one station in our area that says ... we have a report that XXX has occured and we will get back to you when we have a full and accurate report.

So the question is: Should the media wait for facts, stop making the news, and return to reporting the event. A interview with anyone who is involved is more emotional than factual and will be used by lawyers later. Should these people be protected from the media until debriefing has occured and a full picture is available and evidence obtained.

How do you view this?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Dec 15 2012: This raises the question, "Who is responsible? The media for getting out news as fast as possible or the public for taking the breaking news reports as undisputed fact?" While I am against the media being manipulative, I must ask how much of the situation depends on the viewer's assessment of what he/she sees? I personally am skeptical of those emotional interviews discussed in the opening post. Should we as viewers realize that breaking news might be a little off while it first being reported? I personally would rather know as much as I can as fast as I can. I would want to know the major details such as where it is and if it is dangerous as soon as I could. The finer details could be told later. I think delaying reporting the event until the further evidence is obtained would be a worse scenario.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.