August 04, 2009

We recently saw the passing of one of the giants of the journalism world, Walter Cronkite.  He was a broadcaster and public presence a generation before I was old enough to regularly watch the news and follow current events. However, I was struck by, even to this day, the enduring esteem in which he was held by both the American public and his colleagues in the news media.  

It also strikes me that the depth of fond memories and admiration bestowed upon Mr. Cronkite is tinged with a slight but certain desire for a time when the world seemed a little easier to interpret, organize and digest.  Never have we had more ways to access information, especially in areas of particular interest, than we do today.  But the current glut of voices can at times overwhelm and confound.          

Walter Cronkite was a reporter's reporter. He cared deeply about the news and getting it right.  He earned the abiding trust of those who tuned into "CBS Evening News" for many years and who grew to rely upon the sound of his assured and accessible voice.  Lastly, he played it straight, and he had standards.

I recently experienced another example of how "news" is generated far too often today, which stands in unsettling contrast to the ethics and standards of Mr. Cronkite.  An exhaustive minute-by-minute play-by-play is not necessary here but the gist is that a magazine reporter asked us a question about the use of DRM on music.  We pointed out that the question was essentially an irrelevant one now, given that licensed download sites now offer music in unprotected .mp3 format. Specifically, I said: "There is virtually no DRM on music anymore, at least on download services, including iTunes."
This reporter, in a separate conversation with a blogger about this same story, interpreted and paraphrased my comments.  The blogger then took the reporter's characterization of my comments and attributed them to me, directly quoting me as saying "DRM is dead, isn't it?" and posted a piece of his own.  A half-day cycle of Google news hits later, and an inaccurate story is spawned on the web.

I harbor no ill will toward the reporter who was asking a legitimate question.  Or toward the blogger, who, to his credit, subsequently corrected his story.  To their credit, some bloggers did undertake due diligence and checked with us first, and reported (if at all) accurately what we actually said.  But what is shocking is that many others simply regurgitated the initial "reporting" of our comments and never once checked with us, the original source.

 
I have read that the approach taken by some bloggers is that when errors occur in a posting, the online crowd will correct -- that is, commentators or other bloggers will "correct" the story, and therefore, the need to confirm and get it right the first time is not imperative.  Blog posts are "clarified" or “updated” with an injected new graph, but there is no retraction or alteration of original content.  Seems to me this is a dangerous way of doing business.  Not everyone reads the comments or re-reads a "clarified" story, and the damage has been done.  

I'm all for anyone who can shrewdly or colorfully interpret the world or report and reveal facts about what makes it go round, no matter what the medium/source/outlet.  More power to you.  No doubt, we are a more informed society because of the insistent reporting of many blogs who fill niche spaces sadly (and increasingly) left vacant by the traditional news media.  Regardless -- always persistently working to get it right the first time?  That should never go out of style.  Mr. Cronkite may have passed, but some of the lessons he taught us should endure.  

By Jonathan Lamy