| ||||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSNBC held off on the announcement for two hours, to reach Russert's family before the news spread. But news in the Internet era just doesn't keep that long.
A "junior-level employee" at IBS, which provides online services to local NBC affiliates, updated Russert's Wikipedia page 40 minutes before NBC made its statement, according to the Times.
If anyone should know by now how fast news travels in the Internet era, it's another media company like NBC. But it seems that NBC, much like The Associated Press and other old-media businesses, hasn't yet grasped that news is no longer published in a top-down manner.
Thanks to the growth of social sites like Wikipedia, Digg and Drudge Retort (a parody of the Drudge Report) anyone with a computer can now reach millions of readers instantaneously. Unlike even five years ago, it isn't necessary to have your own blog, with an audience of influential readers, to spread news.
Yet, old media still appears convinced it can control when news is released, or in the case of the AP, how online writers can quote from its articles. Last week, the AP roiled the blogosphere by saying it was going to issue "guidelines" spelling out the proper use of its material by online journalists -- never mind that people already have the right to make "fair use" of others' content.
Just as one company doesn't get to dictate "fair use," neither can one news organization determine when news will break -- at least not as long as there are sites like Wikipedia
1 person recommends this article.
RSS FEEDS
George Carlin the same way. I'd been camping for 3 days, was home checking email and was checking the Personal Folder first (letting the other 900+ messages sit awhile) and saw one that said "Oh No, now what are we gonna do? - is he gonna miss the tour?" with a link to a YouTube tribute to Carlin and his hilarious take on death. This friend of mine and I do a week-long road trip every year and the only books we take are George Carlin's and we do a 'reading' from them every day to inspire us, so you can see why we might miss him!
@ Mark Pilipczuk -- Certainly the reason for getting fired should also be using company time and resources to update a Wikipedia entry (unless of course, doing so is within the realms of that person's job description), but that's not the point. I think the point is the lack of sensitivity in posting it. No, I wasn't there, but given the apparent time line of events, somehow the "junior level employee" at a company that provides a service to NBC, was privy to the information about Mr. Russert's death during the time that NBC was handling the situation. If you read the Times article, even other stations and news outlets had the common courtesy and decency to not scoop NBC on the story. It's not like Mr. Russert died during a public event--he wasn't on the air when he died, he wasn't covering a televised event, such as the elections, he wasn't in a public place, such as at the library or in a motorcade--and it seems as if the rest of the journalism world understood the etiquette of being given time to notify the man's family who was abroad at the time (around 5 hours ahead of Eastern time) before breaking the news to the public. It's unfortunate that the IBS employee didn't recognize that. It's as simple as this: the IBS employee was dead wrong. As for who should be the "someone," I don't really know "who" that person should be. The fact that this even happened (not that the person posted it, but that information of this nature went live before an official statement was made) is an example of a flaws in Wikipedia. What's to stop anyone from entering such information true or not, besides a moral compass? Maybe Wikipedia needs a fact checker to handle absolute statements (like someone's life dates) before the information goes live.
Ms. Geiss, how do you know the IBS employee "must have known" that the Russert family hadn't yet been notified? Were you there? And who do you propose be the "someone" who can determine which information is "safe" for me to consume?
Old media no longer has control of how, when and where information is disseminated. And that's a good thing. I prefer my information from variety of sources--old and new media--and over time--from fast and dirty to later and with context and editorial commentary.
If the IBS employee got fired, the right reason would be because they were doing something (updating Wikipedia entries) on company time and with company resources (computers and, yes, the information.)
Constructive criticism aside, in regards to the original post: While I agree that common respect for others is standard to which we should strive, given the number of people online who seem to have nothing more to do with their lives than listen in on police scanners to post whatever scraps of news they pick up, it's not feasible anymore. The "scoop" now belongs to the citizen journalist, to everyman-on-the-street, to anyone with a web-enabled cell phone. So if a news organization such as NBC wants to take the time to get it right -- they should, and I'm glad they want to. Major news organzioations, and especially newspapers shouold do what they do best -- provide in-depth, 360-degree coverage of the story. Leave the "scoops" to the bloggers. I daresay few people could name the source from which they learned the last breaking news item or bulletin. For a good movie at this phenomenon of getting it right instead of fast, watch "The Paper" with Michael Keaton and Robert Duvall.
Of course, this also brings to question whether Wikipedia needs to establish some content control, putting things posted "in moderation" before they go live so that at the very least, *someone* can verify whether sensitive information is safe to publish so that something like this doesn't happen again.
News organizations are trained to think in terms of next of kin, and getting it right. Being first doesn't mean diddly. Being best does.
On the Internet, screw it, who cares, LET'S POST IT!!!! WHOO HOO!!!! Frankly, I first read about it on tmz.com. I knew why NBC was waiting. They wanted to make sure Tim's family was aware of what happened. So did competing organizations.
To their credit, Wikipedia made a staff change as a result.
This isn't about anyone controlling anything. It's about basic human respect and consideration.
I love the Internet, I love the empowerment it brings. With it also comes with responsiblity.