If, as you say, the pressure is on the media to respond quickly in crisis situations, the public needs to accept, and even expect, that errors in communicating information can and will occasionally occur. Is this desirable? No, and as we’ve seen here, it can be heartbreaking. But when everyone wants all the answers to a still-developing story right away, where speed is sometimes placed ahead of accuracy, mistakes will happen. Later on, the reasons for the errors must be examined – shoddy reporting based on a desire to “stay ahead of the competition” or flawed coverage based on an evolving situation and the limited information available at the time?
I disagree that "the public needs to accept, and even expect, that errors in communicating information can and will occasionally occur."
Quality -- in this case accuracy -- is still vital. While those who rush to try to scoop others will periodically be correct, it seems more often than not, they are wrong.
For professional journalists, the expectations are there for accuracy. Forget about blogged or other instant reports. Most people still get their news from the pros. But, if the pros keep forgetting about "Journalism 101," then they will go by the wayside.
As Ford said a long time ago, "Quality is Job 1."
Mike
Andrea:
I'm not criticizing those who took the company to task in their blogs. And I think it's entirely appropriate for PR bloggers to analyze the situation and look for answers.
But I do think our expectations are a bit high in terms of controlling the message. We don't control the message day-to-day in the marketplace ... it's going to be increasingly difficult to control it in crisis situations.
Sorry it didn't come across properly in my first comment: I agree that accuracy, not speed, should be the predominant force in professional journalism. I also believe, not surprisingly, that PR bloggers fulfill a very important role. Most importantly, I agree that message control is extremely difficult, and sometimes impossible, in today's multifaceted, instant news environment. Thanks for letting me clarify.
I think it would help if newspapers stopped thinking of themselves as the source for breaking news and started thinking of themselves as the provider of a deeper, more analytical look behind the scenes.
In other words, a little less focus on "what" and "when" and a lot more focus on "why and how."
What do you guys think?
Thanks for the kind words, John. Let me scare everyone a little further.
Two years ago to the day, I was still in broadcast journalism. The standards are slipping every day: in how reporters are to conduct themselves; in the expectations they have for truth and accuracy; and lastly, in the public expectation for the reliability of the final product.
I don't mean to brag, but there were several potentially "bad" stories we avoided here because we were proactive, and because I knew what the assignment desks would think before they did. And still it got out of control.
These days, it's blind chess in a minefield. You have to play several moves in advance, and hope you don't step in something along the way. The media landscape has changed so much in just five years, heaven help you if you aren't ready for it. The old rulebooks are rapidly losing their relevance.
John, you're on to something here. Would you consider placing your 12:24 pm comment in its own post? (If you can't, I'll try to pick up on this later.)
In fact, that is why I still read the newspaper daily, to get a deeper view and to understand some local dynamics. And yes, I read it in paper. I used to read it online, but I find I have gotten much more out of it reading it in person. And I consider myself a tech-junkie 
Commenting by HaloScan
