Most stories trace origins to newspapers
Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2010
This column has many times emphasized the importance of knowing the source of your news.
Information overload is a consequence of exploding technological developments.
Whether it’s a Web site, a blog, a Facebook posting or a tweet, today’s technologically savvy consumers have the opportunity for a constant bombardment of what might or might not be “news.”
Those who want to read the latest info about the Leno vs. O’Brien television saga; Tiger Woods’ indiscretions; or which actress had the most plunging neckline at Sunday’s Golden Globe Awards ceremonies, might seek specialized coverage of those events.
The majority of people who want to read real news stories, particularly local news stories, get that information from newspapers.
That fact was reinforced by a Pew Research Center study for the Project for Excellence in Journalism released last week.
The study considered news reporting using Baltimore, a substantially more populated area than Southeast Texas, as a case study.
It closely examined news from all local outlets in that city — a total of 53 — for a week and determined that much of the news people get “contains no original reporting.”
According to the study, “fully eight out of ten stories studied simply repeated or repackaged previously published information.”
The study further found that those stories containing original information were, 95 percent of the time, produced by traditional media outlets, primarily newspapers, which produced more than 60 percent of the original content.
Television stations or their Web sites were responsible for about 28 percent; radio for about 7 percent; and other media accounted for about 4 percent of original reporting.
“Eight out of ten newspaper stories (80 percent) were straight news accounts written by local staffers.”
Government entities, primarily law enforcement offices, triggered more than 60 percent of the news coverage.
Television news was found to devote more resources to local news with 64 percent of the stories categorized as local, as compared to 53 percent of newspaper stories.
The survey also emphasized concerns about accuracy on developing stories as new media outlets fail to follow up stories they gather from other sources.
“Sometimes old stories that were already obsolete were posted or linked to after events had changed and the original news site has updated them.”
Reduced staffing at most newspapers has had a major impact on reporting, according to the study.
The Baltimore Sun, the major newspaper analyzed, produced 32 percent fewer stories on any subject in 2009 than it did in 1999.
Expanding sources of news unfortunately don’t necessarily mean better, more complete or more accurate news, according to the study.
“As news is posted faster, often with little enterprise reporting added, the official version of events is becoming more important. We found official press releases often appear word for word in first accounts of events, though often not noted as such ... formal procedures for citing and crediting can get lost. We found numerous examples of Web sites carrying sections of other people’s work without attribution and often suggesting original reporting was added when none was.”
When I went to journalism school several decades ago, we called that plagiarism.
Today, unfortunately, many sources simply call it repackaging.
The good news from this study is that much of the news consumers are getting is coming from credible newspaper journalists reporting firsthand.
The bad news is, as more and more of those journalists fail to be recognized for their work, both by declining subscribers and the public at large, credible journalism becomes more and more endangered.
Bloggers, commentators, tweeters and would-be journalists who don’t understand the basics of original reporting, attribution and follow-up should scare people who care about truth in reporting.
They certainly scare me.
This column has many times emphasized the importance of knowing the source of your news.
Information overload is a consequence of exploding technological developments.
Whether it’s a Web site, a blog, a Facebook posting or a tweet, today’s technologically savvy consumers have the opportunity for a constant bombardment of what might or might not be “news.”
Those who want to read the latest info about the Leno vs. O’Brien television saga; Tiger Woods’ indiscretions; or which actress had the most plunging neckline at Sunday’s Golden Globe Awards ceremonies, might seek specialized coverage of those events.
The majority of people who want to read real news stories, particularly local news stories, get that information from newspapers.
That fact was reinforced by a Pew Research Center study for the Project for Excellence in Journalism released last week.
The study considered news reporting using Baltimore, a substantially more populated area than Southeast Texas, as a case study.
It closely examined news from all local outlets in that city — a total of 53 — for a week and determined that much of the news people get “contains no original reporting.”
According to the study, “fully eight out of ten stories studied simply repeated or repackaged previously published information.”
The study further found that those stories containing original information were, 95 percent of the time, produced by traditional media outlets, primarily newspapers, which produced more than 60 percent of the original content.
Television stations or their Web sites were responsible for about 28 percent; radio for about 7 percent; and other media accounted for about 4 percent of original reporting.
“Eight out of ten newspaper stories (80 percent) were straight news accounts written by local staffers.”
Government entities, primarily law enforcement offices, triggered more than 60 percent of the news coverage.
Television news was found to devote more resources to local news with 64 percent of the stories categorized as local, as compared to 53 percent of newspaper stories.
The survey also emphasized concerns about accuracy on developing stories as new media outlets fail to follow up stories they gather from other sources.
“Sometimes old stories that were already obsolete were posted or linked to after events had changed and the original news site has updated them.”
Reduced staffing at most newspapers has had a major impact on reporting, according to the study.
The Baltimore Sun, the major newspaper analyzed, produced 32 percent fewer stories on any subject in 2009 than it did in 1999.
Expanding sources of news unfortunately don’t necessarily mean better, more complete or more accurate news, according to the study.
“As news is posted faster, often with little enterprise reporting added, the official version of events is becoming more important. We found official press releases often appear word for word in first accounts of events, though often not noted as such ... formal procedures for citing and crediting can get lost. We found numerous examples of Web sites carrying sections of other people’s work without attribution and often suggesting original reporting was added when none was.”
When I went to journalism school several decades ago, we called that plagiarism.
Today, unfortunately, many sources simply call it repackaging.
The good news from this study is that much of the news consumers are getting is coming from credible newspaper journalists reporting firsthand.
The bad news is, as more and more of those journalists fail to be recognized for their work, both by declining subscribers and the public at large, credible journalism becomes more and more endangered.
Bloggers, commentators, tweeters and would-be journalists who don’t understand the basics of original reporting, attribution and follow-up should scare people who care about truth in reporting.
They certainly scare me.
posted by Sheila Friedeck at 10:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home