Final Post

Upon listening to the podcast and reading the post I realized I too have fallen into the trap of spreading misinformation. I was notified mere seconds about the bombings in Boston thanks to my Twitter feed. At first I was terrified for the innocent people involved in the horrific situation. I was constantly on my Twitter feed the next few hours. Even checking my phone during class for new updates. When I got to my internship that afternoon I started discussing the bombings with those attending the team meeting. We started talking about how many bombs there were, whether it was a terrorist attack, and I had just learned there was a third bomb that went off in a library (which turned out to be unrelated). Our leader hadn't heard of the bombings yet and all of us started sharing the details we knew.

Reflecting back to those few hours, I realize now what I was doing was nothing better than gossip. Sharing facts with other that may or may not be true from sources from a Twitter feed. In fact, I also got a thrill from sharing information they didn't have. It was like the shiny new toy that a toddler wants to show off. It turns out a lot of the information I received in the early hours was incorrect, yet it was too late to take back what I had passed on. This insatiable need to have the information first, to share it first comes from the ever changing culture surrounding us. For some reason, if we're first were the best. 

These news organizations receive the information so quickly and disseminate it before verification because the audience will not tolerate having the information second. If one channel is receiving information about a major event more quickly than the other then the audience will most likely switch channels. Viewers equal survival, and in order to keep viewers they must have the information first. Social media has only perpetuated this.

Convenience of cell phones causes people to be constantly plugged in. Refreshing pages and feeds are a constant of everyday life. Sharing, retweeting can bring information from one network to another within seconds. People have access to virtually unlimited information at the touch of a finger, and they want speed. Social media has perpetuated this norm of needing information immediately when desired, and in order to meet the needs of their audience, news organizations must adapt.

That evening when I was watching a few different channels covering the bombings I noticed a theme across many of them. When a new piece of information about the bombings arises it is quickly disseminated usually with "our (insert news organization here) has not verified this fact yet, but it looks like..." and then it leads into some sort of speculation. Because of these facts it looks like this. These are the kind of "sin licenses" that are not in congruence with the ethics of journalism. For example, when the bombers were identified by the FBI, and several channels gathered information about their country of origin and immediately started speculating extremist ties because of the history of region. However, they did not know this for a fact it is purely speculation. When I was taught journalistic procedure speculation was not a part of it. However, much of the populace may believe it to be true because the news presents it. 

Maybe the problem does not lie in the news organizations themselves, but in the people. All of us included. 

Feature News

For my feature story I decided to explore the topic of Native American petroglyphs/pictographs, and the historical significance of them to the area. Destruction and preservation of these historical markers have been an ongoing issue and debate for years. 

These petroglyphs are located a short hike from where I grew up, and their whereabouts has been well-known causing trails and markings to appear. The petroglyphs are in fact on BLM land and therefore considered public land and use.