Read on Twitter
News platform breaks story that later turns out to be false. By that point other newsrooms have reported on the other newsroom's exclusive. When story is false, ALL NOW report it as coming from "various media reports." That's its genesis? All follow same verification process? https://twitter.com/RediTlhabi/status/1313746942413897737
This is not only editorial but political. Let me start with editorial. The source of the information, if it's NOT the Hawks, must be asked: How do you know about the warrant? Have the Hawks spoken to you? When? Then you call the Hawks to verify. This is BEFORE story goes on air
If story is false, then it doesn't go on air at all. Otherwise news cycle becomes reporting each other's unverified reports. Then the next day, reporting that their reports are false, BUT attributing them to "various media reports." Mockery of news content and story ownership
Has news become a "he says" game rather than , "Is it true, is it conceivable, is it likely " and what is basis for that position?Also media's culture of not crediting/quoting each other is cementing this "various media reports say." Ultimately media becomes purveyor of SAMENESS
On political front: It is a proven fact that politicians use media for their own political games and to control public perception. They do so whilst simultaneously delegitimizing institutions, including law enforcement. Some media are part of the game, others fall victim to it.
Politicians have figured it out. Drop the story & watch them fall over themselves reporting EXACTLY what you want them to report. By the time verification, retraction & correction come, it's too late. The public has already bought the lie that you wanted media to help you spread
To avoid being played, a journalist must ask, why is he/she telling me this? How does it benefit him/her for me to report it? Whose voice is ALSO crucial to this story? What is he/she NOT telling me? What is the background to this? Evidence? Take time to complicate the narrative!
If the the arrest warrant IS the truth and the Hawks are denying it, then okay. But surely the reportage then would not be "the Hawks say it's fake news" but rather, EVIDENCE that the Hawks are backtracking and it's NOT fake news? A "we stand by our story" type of angle?
