Excellent post. Great content throughout the site. I'm adding you to my blog roll. Thanks for adding me to yours. Look for me to visit often.
You're right, Mike. The centralized dissemination of information during a crisis is an ideal to be strived for. It doesn't always happen.
You're also right in describing a media seemingly more concerned with being first than with the accuracy of the information they would report. (This is the issue with which The Post's Howard Kurtz and others took issue.)
My point, however, is that the journalists reporting the initial story used reasonably credible sources before going to bed with it. Hence, they are not entirely to blame for the screw-up. Was there a rush to be first? It sounds like it.
Net net: it's a good thing for the fourth estate to peridocially conduct post-mortems to ensure that the same mistakes are not made in the future. Think Dan Rather, Jayson Blair, etc.
Peter: Your point about the importance of centralizing the flow of information is dead-on.
Unfortunately, that's not always possible.
From the various stories I read, I read at least a couple different ways of how the misinformation about the survival of the miners spread.
Hindsight is best. However, in any breaking story like this, reporters should be aware going in that information can be sketchy and not always accurate.
Most of the blame can lie in the race of every media outlet to be the first. To scoop others.
The rush for ratings and readers has significantly damaged journalism. It has caused journalists (in print, TV anad radio) to be less prudent in verification.
-- Mike
Commenting by HaloScan
