“Those direct, near-instantaneous dispatches are far less reliable than old-fashioned journalism.” And upon this I call BS. I have found that any reportage where I’ve been to the event, seen and heard and experienced for myself, has been incorrect at some level of detail. Every single one. Why? Because of editing. Because if you’re collecting interviews and making notes you are not experiencing the event. Because certain interests are promoted (newsworthiness, sponsorship, patronage etc.)
I don’t disagree that the wildfire repetition of unconfirmed information is the road to accuracy either. But this core assumption that the news orgs are more reliable than a series of first hand accounts is just crap.
Also in this article is whining from Steve Frothingham:
It’s one-sided,” said VeloNews.com editor Steve Frothingham in explaining the policy. “It’s us just sitting there taking what he’s giving. We can’t just not ask follow-up questions, we can’t ask any questions.
Have you heard the inane, worthless, follow up questions most reporters ask? I’m not saying that it’s easy in the scrum that is most press events to come up with scintillating and to the point questions, but considering that and the usual lack of answer (stay on message, stay on message) it’s hardly problematic.
What all this whining is really about is disintermediation. And that’s a problem not so easily fixed if your in the news business.