At first glance it looks as if Americans have an abundance
of news sources at their fingertips—at least the majority of us with easy
access to the Internet. But as other public relations professionals may have
noticed, sources of real news have shrunk substantially. Most of the news we see is repackaged from
other sources, sometimes as a news story and sometimes with the spin of opinion
attached.
A few years back, the Pew Research Center conducted an in-depth analysis of news reporting in one city, Baltimore, which found that daily newspapers are responsible for 50% of all original news reporting.
Most of the local media would pick up stories from the local newspaper or from
wire services. Today there are fewer wire services, but most significantly,
there are many fewer daily newspapers and those still around have fewer
reporters in search of original news.
As consumers of news, we easily and naturally overlook how
concentrated the sources of news generation have become in recent years. As a public
relations professional, though, I frequently see the results of news
concentration. The other day it led to many news stories that were completely
inaccurate and had the potential of harming the reputation of a very effective
and responsible social service organization. The funny part, though, is that at
the heart of the misinformation was a reporter misinterpreting a sentence
written in the passive construction. It therefore took an act of bad writing to
set off a chain of misjudgments and standard practices that led to erroneous
information on several TV stations and in several newspapers.
Here’s how it happened:
A child nearly drowned during swimming at a summer day camp operated by
a social service agency. The child was fine and didn’t have to go to the
hospital, but as is normal protocol, the social service agency reported the
incident to the appropriate regulatory body. After an inspection, the regulator
decided to revoke the license of the summer camp because not all the camp staff
was following every safety protocol. The social service agency then decided on
its own to close down the swimming programs of the other 20 some-odd summer
camps it operates for a few days to do a thorough inspection of each, retrain
all the staff and make sure that all the staff knew and were following all the
safety protocols. Of course, a parent or two called the daily newspaper, which
published an accurate report.
Unfortunately, that accurate report contained the sentence, “Each camp site
must be inspected and approved before it can reopen for aquatics.” Note the passive construction, which does not require the
writer to tell us who is doing the inspecting and approving. In point of fact,
it was the social service organization, acting on its own behalf and through no
request of any regulatory agency or pressure by any other organization, which
decided to close the programs and inspect. No one had been hurt, but the
organization was bending over backwards to protect the children in its charge.
Unfortunately, the rewrite
professional at the Associated Press (AP) did not do any research or
fact-checking when he or she abridged the story into one paragraph. That one paragraph
claimed that the regulatory body had closed all the camps and had to approve
them before they could reopen again. To avoid the passive, the re-writer had to
attribute the actions to someone, and so he or she made an assumption that it
was the regulator. Wrong information, and liable to give the public a false
impression of the social service agency.
Several TV stations and many
regional newspapers reprinted or read the Associated Press story during the few
hours that it was posted. The social
service organization—a client of my company—called me at 10:00 at night and I
had to call several local TV stations and the AP to get the story corrected. It
was no problem, at all: everyone was very professional. They made the change
once I had properly identified myself. The
TV stations dropped the story, because it was no longer newsworthy for TV. A
regulatory body asking an organization to close down more than 20 camps is
definitely newsworthy. But an organization volunteering to double-check or
police itself may or may not be newsworthy; a newspaper may have room for the
story, but local TV news likely won’t.
It took two and maybe three
mistakes by two (or three) very reliable and professional organizations for
incorrect news to get out:
- The social service organization and its PR counselor (my company!) may or may not have made a mistake by deciding not to distribute a news release that would have specified that it was the organization and not some regulatory body that acted. If and when to release information is the most difficult question for public relations practitioners. On the one hand, subsequent events revealed that it wasn’t much of a news story. On the other hand, if the organization had distributed a news release, it is less likely that a media outlet would have misreported he story.
- The writer of the original story made a mistake in style against which I often rage in print and with my staff: a passive construction that created a misleading sentence.
- The AP made an assumption from the passively-constructed sentence that was just inaccurate. The mistake was not taking the time to check the facts.
One more proof that to a great degree, the news has become like casual dining restaurants: whichever restaurant you go to, you’ll have your choice of essentially the same menu. The name and brand are different, and maybe one has a spicy sauce and another offers something sweet, but the contents are the same.
The same is true of hard news today. We see it everywhere,
but most of the people reporting or commenting on it got the information from
somewhere else. Thus whatever the brand, you’re essentially getting the same
news. Try reading daily newspapers from two different cities. You’d be
surprised at how many have the same stories and even the same columnists. Or
consider how all the media in one region cover the same story. Yes, sometimes
the liberal newspaper will spin the story one way, while the right-wing radio
station will spin it another, but the facts and quotes will mostly be the same.
One media outlet does the story and everyone else just accepts its version and
goes from there.
No comments:
Post a Comment