As previously discussed in class, an increasing percentage of the news we take in is shared through social media. The most prominent of social media sites for sharing news is Twitter, it’s concise message size and accessibility allow for fast movement of news on a global platform. The utilization of hashtags allow people to find specific tweets about a news story to join in on the conversation as well as find new information about breaking news. While it has proven to be a great tool during natural disasters to help citizens get reach aid and connect with each other, it can have an adverse affect and result in hysteria when false information is distributed.
While it’s understandable not to have all of the details immediately when covering a breaking news story, reporting “facts” based simply on what has been shared on Twitter should always be avoided. Even if it is shared by what appears to be a reputable source, anyone can produce false pages and dispense misleading information from it. As journalists and members of the media, we are bound by a code of ethics to serve the public good as watchdogs. A traditional news story utilizes multiple sources to craft a well thought story with cultivated facts. Since our credibility is defined by the stories we produce, what does it say about our ability and credibility as journalists when we release information based solely on here-say from the internet?
However, if I found myself in a situation I would immediately retract my initial words with an apology for the mistake. Then, when I had the correct information I would reissue the story as an updated article. Regardless of the post-publishing PR scramble, the only way to ensure you are not duped and publicly embarrassed is to be relentless in confirming information. It has happened too many times now and has created a firestorm of panic, such as the journalist tweeting that Gabby Gifford had died although he did not have the doctor’s confirmation. Even when sources may appear to be authentic and reputable, following fundamental practices will ensure precision. While the reporter who made the initial call about Gifford’s “death” was informed by a police officer and another congressman, only medical doctors can officially declare deaths.
As with the Huffington Post “interview” with an alleged witness of a shooting, led the reporter astray with false information. While it is unethical that the “witness” allowed this process to take place and intentionally provided false witness, a reporter should never conduct a major interview via social media, especially when they have no prior communication or knowledge of the source. When the source already lacks credibility, the story and reporter will as well.