Can The News Be Held Back?
from the probably-not-any-more dept
In this internet age where everyone has a huge publishing platform at their disposal, and people are encouraged to become "citizen journalists" is it even possible anymore to keep "news" events quiet? A key example under discussion was the recent passing of famed TV news anchor Tim Russert. About a half an hour after he was confirmed dead at a hospital, someone had updated his Wikipedia page with the information -- a full 38 minutes before NBC announced his death. It turns out that the edit came from someone working at a company that managed various NBC affiliate websites. The employee was apparently fired -- though, you could question why. We've reached an age where many people feel that sharing the news is the best way to interact with news these days.Still, it does raise some ethical questions. As Mathew Ingram asks:
Was the person who changed the Wikipedia page committing an act of journalism, or divulging privileged information?This used to be a much simpler question when journalists were journalists -- and privileged information was privileged information. But the boundaries of both things have become quite blurred these days, and that's only going to result in more questions being raised before society agrees on the answers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: holding back the tide, journalism, news, tim russert
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
wtf was he fired for?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: wtf was he fired for?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: wtf was he fired for?
(I could go either way on this... but I am an anti-romantic.. I'd rather know, so I can make appropriate plans immediately, I think)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Privileged information, my ass
[ link to this | view in thread ]
other issues
I think this raises several issues regarding Wikipedia itself. How does one verify such updates, especially since Wikipedia places great emphasis on citation? This was a scoop; does Wikipedia allow for scoops?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
privileged information
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: other issues
So, Wikipedia does allow for scoops, if other sources are cited within a certain timeframe.
In this instance, other sources could have been cited within hours.
Death certificates are generally a matter of public record, and this particular dead guy's could presumably have been cited immediately or at any time.
(In fact, at this time two sources are already cited regarding the death in question: The Huffington Post and USA Today.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: privileged information
So say the paparazzi, too, so it must be so!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: wtf was he fired for?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: privileged information
Nice straw man. But deaths are a matter of immediate public record; reporting truthfully that one has occurred is hardly comparable to hounding a live celebrity and attempting to invade their privacy.
Perhaps an investigation with questionable ethics into the lurid details of a death, then publication of same, would fall into the kind of sleazy paparazzi journalism you lambast, but reporting the mere fact of someone's death is nothing like that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There was no real public interest in breaking the news a few minutes ahead of the official announcement. Perhaps if it was Dick Cheney's corpse, being propped up Brezhnev-style for months on end, there would be news value. There wasn't here.
That seems like one of the flaws of 'citizen journalism'. There's a lot of problems with professional reporting too (and I declare an interest here, as a reporter on a minor magazine), but people who do journalism for a living and have received some training generaly at least consider moral issues like this.
When people are submitting news just for kudos, like this person was, some of them seem to ignore these issues. It's kind of like the idiots who go around posting "First!" in every comment thread they can find: the content and context isn't important, just beating everone else is.
Disregarding ethics and all that though, there's a simple contractual issue. This person was employed to collect news on behalf of NBC, not to give it away it to the company's rivals. If you work for Widget Manglers Inc., and take a bunch of prototype widgets out of the factory to give away, you can expect to be fired. This seems to be an example of pretty much the same betrayal of one's duty to an employer.
Perhaps now they'll have a chance to demonstrate their skills as a 'citizen journalist' by coming up with some stories they haven't just leaked from their employer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Moral question? Exactly where is this morality derived? The bible. The koran? Some mystic scroll?
"I guess a lot of people would think it kind of nice to have the news broken to them by someone they know."
So your basis for morality is "nicness." If someone finds it nice, you have to do it. Some people would not find it nice to have their broken leg reset by a doctor. I certainly would not find that nice. But yet it needs to be done for the bone to heal. Are you saying that unpleasant and painful medical procedures are immoral because they're not nice? Just wondering.
"There was no real public interest in breaking the news a few minutes..."
Why? You did not give any argument to support this assertion. Does merely saying it make it true?
"That seems like one of the flaws of 'citizen journalism'...'
So the flaw is "citizen journalism" is that it gets the news out faster than traditional journalism? You find virtue in getting your news late? Wow, you can't argue against that nonsense.
"It's kind of like the idiots who go around posting "First!" in every comment thread they can find"
Let me get this straight, the early reporting of a factually accurate and legitimate news story is somehow analogous with someone posting "first post." Do you even bother to think before you type?
"Disregarding ethics and all that though, there's a simple contractual issue."
Agreed, if there was a specific contract provision that covered this situation, and if he violated the contract, and if the contract specifies employment termination for this conduct, then employment termination was warranted. But I've never seen the contract, and neither of you, so we're sort of speculating here.
"Perhaps now they'll have a chance to demonstrate their skills as a 'citizen journalist' by coming up with some stories they haven't just leaked from their employer."
I love your use of the word "leak." What is a leak, but water being slowing released from a place where it should not be released.
You seem to praise that idea that it is the job of legitimate journalist to control the flow of news. That, for some bizarre reason, we're not equipped to deal with news in real time. We have to have it delayed, processed, and manipulated by large corporations before it's ready to be poured into our TVs, newspapers, and computers.
I'll let you in on some more news. This sort of thinking is the exact sort of system that "citizen journalists" are trying to destroy. I'm a big boy. I can handle real news. If you can't, it's your problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Exactly where is this morality derived?
Common human decency. You see your neighbour's mum run over by a bus. Do you bang on their door and shout, "Your mum's dead", or wait a while for the hospital/police to confirm the situation and get in touch, before going round to offer your condolences?
No-one was hiding Russert's death, it wasn't some big conspiracy by the MSM (which, like all conspiracy theories seems really to just be a cipher for the Elders of Zion), it was just people being nice and trying to make sure his family learnt about his death in the best way possible.
You seem to praise that idea that it is the job of legitimate journalist to control the flow of news.
Interesting that you describe what I do as 'legitimate', without scare quotes. I'm flattered you think the fact I get paid makes me more legitimate a source than someone who doesn't.
To answer your question though, no that's not really what I think. It's a journalist's job to add value to facts: context, background, that kind of thing. It's not just finding something out and telling everyone (although there is value to that too). It takes a lot time to do that well, and I, for one, can do it well enough to get paid for my time.
I'm also too selfish to do it for free, and too disorganised to earn money from it outside of a salaried job. If other people want to volunteer their efforts, or can come up with ways to get paid without working for someone else, good luck to them.
Citizen journalism is a good thing. This wasn't an example of journalism though, 'citizen' or otherwise, just of hurtful and unkind gossiping.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So you're saying that fired employee personally notified the family without confirming the situation? Because if that's what you are saying you're wrong, once again.
First, he did not personally notify the family. And second, he waited until it was verified prior to posting it on Wikipedia.
"No-one was hiding Russert's death,"
Great, the we agree the employee should not be fired. I'm glad you finally came to your senses. Because if NBC was not hiding it, the former employee did nothing wrong.
"Interesting that you describe what I do as 'legitimate', without scare quotes."
Actually, I never said you were a "legitimate" anything.
"It takes a lot time to do that well..."
The employee reported it 38 minutes early. Is that how much time it always takes "to do that well"? Or does it depend on the news story? Could you provide a list of how long stories should be hid before being released? Thanks for clearing that up for us.
"Citizen journalism is a good thing. This wasn't an example of journalism though, 'citizen' or otherwise, just of hurtful and unkind gossiping."
Let me get this straight, you're comparing a report of an actual and accurate news event to gossip?! Once again, you can't argue against that sort of nonsense.
And you're ignoring the fact that some news is hurtful and unkind. Should we not report on Islamic terrorism because it offends Muslims? Should we only report on happy and uplifting news? If that's the news you want, you're perfectly free to subscribe to People magazine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Didn't notify them personally, no, but announced it before it was confirmed: hence the analogy with shouting the news in the street.
RTFA
he waited until it was verified prior to posting it on Wikipedia.
Granted. But did he wait until he was sure the family knew? I cover an industry where people are killed, frequently. Generally, I take the stance there's no rush to release names until we know there's been a public announcment. That doesn't mean we hold off reporting the why and how.
We decide on whether to report something by considering news value, public interest, and the feelings of the people involved. Tim Russert isn't Brezhnev: It doesn't matter to anyone but his friends and family whether he's alive or dead, so there's no urgent public interest in announcing his death. If you have a conscience, that's one of the easiest judgements to make.
you're comparing a report of an actual and accurate news event to gossip
Bob Dodd bangs your mum.
That may well be a fact, but it hasn't really embiggenned either of us for me to tell you, or to announce it on a public forum. It's not the factual status of the story that makes it news or gossip, but whether it benefits anyone else to tell or be told it.
And you're ignoring the fact that some news is hurtful and unkind. Should we not report on Islamic terrorism because it offends Muslims?
Not at all. Much news will hurt someone, and that's often one sign of it being good reporting. The question, again, though is if it also benefits anyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rather than saying:
"Didn't notify them personally, no, but announced it before it was confirmed: hence the analogy with shouting the news in the street."
I should have said:
"Didn't notify them personally, no, but announced it ahead of anyone who knew Russert's family: hence the analogy with shouting the news in the street."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If that were true, NBC wouldn't have reported it at all, and neither would any other MSM organization. They wouldn't have noticed or cared that this guy posted the info on WP, wouldn't have fired him, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Clearly it matters to a lot of people that he died. It was a newsworthy event.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
huh?
And also, do you people watch for all and any updates to Wikipedia every microsecond? Chances are Tim Russert's family isn't even computer-literate and getting news from Wikipedia would be the farthest thing from their mind.
And lastly, this is a perfect example of the Streisand Effect: calling attention to a small or non-event causes it to balloon into a big deal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sure, he's newsworthy in so far as the public is interested, but that's not the same as there being a public interest in reporting his death ASAP. For someone in a position of real power, their life or death may have repercussions that effect everyone.
I guess my only real point, for all the keystrokes I've spent on this, is that a lot of trained journalists are more likely to weigh issues like this than Wikipedia posters or 'citizen journalists' are. The flipside of that though is the effort so many media outfits make to strive for fake balance, when in fact one side is right and the other wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Privileged information, my ass
At least, they certainly act like they do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"There was no real public interest in breaking the news a few minutes ahead of the official announcement."
There is real public interest in preserving freedom of speech. (And even, for that matter, in keeping Wikipedia up to date.)
"there's a simple contractual issue. This person was employed to collect news on behalf of NBC, not to give it away it to the company's rivals."
Wikipedia is an archrival of NBC now? I bet this is news to Jimbo Wales. If it's true then all I've got to say is Rah! Rah! Go, Wikipedia, Go!
"If you work for Widget Manglers Inc., and take a bunch of prototype widgets out of the factory to give away, you can expect to be fired."
Hardly comparable. For one thing, your "analogy" involves the outright theft of physical property. There may also be patent, copyright, or trade secrecy issues. However, the fact of someone's death, being a) a mere fact and b) automatically a matter of public record and public-domain government-kept statistics, certainly cannot reasonably be considered either a trade secret, patentable, or copyrightable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment adds nothing, but...
1. Your analogy infers that "You" see an event, make a potentially incorrect assumption, then--without evidence--relate your conclusion to someone who would have significant interest in that event.
The only problem I see here is that your comparison includes a rather obvious modification that is not present in the actual story: a lack of evidence. By adding a premise, you've modified the special formula that would have made this a suitable argument.
2. Personally, if I were to see such an event and knew one of the victim's relatives, I'd consider letting them know of it to be the "right thing." You're logically equating telling the victim's family member, whom you don't intimately know, with being excessively blunt and callous--two very different things. Hence, you've managed to, once again, inject an additional premise, thus invalidating your argument.
3. You put forth the assertion that you care about this fictional victim, but you give me no cause to believe you.
If by "wait a while" you mean "wait anxiously," then you're probably doing worse than gossip: you're being a disingenuous weasel with an agenda. You're hoping to get a little, social reward for being there, seeing it all happen, and expressing your "sincere" condolences to a neighbor that is probably feeling too hurt to appreciate an obligatory acknowledgement from some guy who lives next door.
On the other hand, if you mean "wait apathetically" or even "wait until a more appropriate time," you're merely shirking what may be considered a kind of moral responsibility. You make no mention of encountering the neighbor on the way home. Would you wave to them, then avoid them? Would you share some small talk without mentioning what you saw? Would you even go so far as to have a nice conversation with them, maybe even discussing their potentially dead relative, without betraying what you had witnessed? That's not caring or respect: it's just not giving a damn.
4) The point of this post was that an employee, under no relevant obligation to the company, was fired for the equivalent of calling a friend to tell them that someone famous had just died, followed by that friend posting in their blog about it. If, instead, this had been the case--being connected to a kind of secondary leak--then it's more likely that he would not have lost his job, even if that friend's post had reached the same level of visibility as when posted to Wikipedia.
5) What if the "leak" came from a reporter who just happened to be in the same wing as the dying anchor? I doubt they would have done much then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Corporate integrity? Or mad at being scooped?
Aren't these people some of the same ones who are so quick to diseminate reports, rumors, and fact-toids on celebrities and world leaders? If this had been about one of the more popular celebrities or a world leader of some third-world country I really doubt that they would be so quick to be concerned about making sure that the news didn't go out until the family had been notified.
Forgive me if I'm less than impressed with their "concern" for the family and their pretend jouralisting integrity and instead view this more as a corporate reaction to being "scooped" on a news item that they themselves felt that they should have been first to present it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ok.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: wtf was he fired for?
You might call that fair but for the past 10 years, I have read and cried about my loss.
[ link to this | view in thread ]