Nothing’s sacred in the online jungle
March 18th, 2009 by Jon Clements
What has happened, in recent hours, to the sanctity of death and accuracy in its reporting?
First, OK! Magazine publishes a “tribute” edition to the critically ill, reality TV star, Jade Goody, who is - at time of writing - not dead.
Though the move has apparently not received public condemnation, a quick peek at the blogosphere doesn’t reveal an avalanche of support. As David O’Keefe points out, Goody “didn’t meet OK!’s deadline” while Culch.ie labels it - simply - “disgracefully tasteless”.
And then, following the skiing accident involving actress, Natasha Richardson, Time Out New York magazine reported her as dead, only to retract it later when it became clear she wasn’t. Yet the magazine, in its breathtaking arrogance, said it “stood by its sources”. Let me get this straight - it reported someone dead who wasn’t, basing this on the word of a “family friend” who rang back later with a different story. Never mind staking groundless claims to journalistic ethics; a full page, unreserved apology would be the very least it could offer. As a former reporter on a local newspaper, getting the official facts on a fatality from the police or hospital spokesperson was journalism 101.
If that’s not bad enough, take a look at the Daily Stab’s attempt to correct its own misinformation on the Richardson story:
It doesn’t come much worse than this and neatly encapsulates the risk of democratised, online reporting.
Whether it’s the sloppy, inaccurate reporting of a tragedy or incorrect opinions expressed about a company or other organisation, online it spreads like a conversational bushfire. And those with a reputation to protect have to understand that handling a crisis online takes more than speaking to a relative handful of editors as in a media furore of yesteryear. You need to know where the conversations are taking place, be where they are and know how to converse.
If the media treats death as they’ve done with Jade and Natasha Richardson, what might they do with something far less important?
Tags: , Jade Goody, Natasha Richardson, OK! Magazine, online reporting
March 18th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I couldn’t agree more with what you have said.
The OK tribute is absolutely breath-takingly awful. It is in such bad taste that I can barely comprehend that a publication would consider it to be a good thing to do. If I were the editor I would be hanging my head in shame.
As for the Natasha Richardson story, it illustrates the perils of 24 hour immediate media - it doesn’t matter if the facts are wrong, who got the story out first?
It’s a bad day for responsible journalism.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
The Goody thing bothers me most, simply because they went ahead with it, knowing full well it was false. They made a fiscal decision to release a magazine claiming to have Jade’s “final words” just so they can make money now and continue to make it after she has passed. I don’t care that Jade’s family are OK (excuse the pun) with it - this sets a horrible precedent.
March 18th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Agree on OK, the Richardson thing - as Jayne points out - show the dangers of rushing to be first with a story. In the mass media - ie, the papers - that can be brokered by the luxury of time, but as we move to more 24 hour news can we expect this to be the norm?
I hope not, because let’s be honest - is reporting the death of a celebrity’s wife the sort of scoop that wins awards or acclaim - or that the site itself would boast about? No, it certainly isn’t.
(You may be a little harsh on the reporter though: they took their info from a contact in good faith - and then corrected it - and hospitals and police no longer relase information on someone unless you are a direct relative)
Then again, I don’t get the obsession with celebrities for news (though they have their place in features). Was never something that worked for me, even when I was at the Mirror and elsewhere.
March 19th, 2009 at 1:19 am
In my own defense, the incorrect news of Natasha’s death came across several news outlets yesterday. I’m just trying to keep my readers up on the news so I posted it, then shortly after finding out it was untrue I fixed it and apologized, but didn’t try to hide it like some other sites.
I was honest about it and sincerely apologized. It was an honest mistake and believe me, I learned my lesson. I will not be so quick to post news of a death ever again.
It is very awful, but please know that I definitely did not start it and would have NEVER posted knowing it was untrue.
As for OK! Mags ‘tribute’ to a very much alive Jade Goody, THAT is disgusting.
March 19th, 2009 at 4:37 am
I am heart broken by the news of this accident. Do we need to argue over all the reporting issues? I have treated people with this exact diagnosis and have seen many survive. Why would such an awful thing happen? I don’t understand and hope that the family will find some comfort somehow.
March 19th, 2009 at 8:49 am
Jayne - I concur with you. Cheque book journalism is nothing new, but OK!has taken it to a new low. As Darren says in his comment, it’s the precedent that it sets: suddenly, anything can be bought with impunity.
Craig - I see your point but my problem with Time Out New York is two-fold: the unseemly rush to get the story out meant dealing with an unofficial (and, it appears, unreliable) source that got it wrong. And, when faced with correcting the mistake, the publication seemed more concerned with defending its sources and its approach than being contrite and shutting up.
Daily Stab - I guess it’s a hard lesson learned. I realise that yours is a “fun sight” and you have a disclaimer about accuracy, but the power to publish is one that can’t be taken lightly. When I was reporting I got the details of an inquest wrong. Now, that person was already dead, but my errors didn’t upset the relatives any less and I got the editorial roasting of my life for it.
March 19th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Nancy - you’re right. The real tragedy is (as officially reported this morning) the loss of someone’s life.
But I still think we need to debate the rights and wrongs of how we receive our information. We need a free media for many, many reasons - but we need standards as well.