Online Accuracy - The Doubters

In traditional print media, the news cycle goes something like this:
gather gather gather gather gather gather gather NEWS rest rest...

The cycle is as up-and-down as a sine wave, mounting up in explosive pressure before bursting out in a flurry of newsprint and toner. Then there is rest before the gathering must begin again.

In the online media, the news cycle goes something like this:
GATHER NEWS GATHER NEWS GATHER NEWS
The problem most traditional print journalists assign to online media is that in this relentlessly oscillating cycle, there is no room for the copy editing and delicate preparation that put the "reputable" in "reputable news outlet."

Basically, the accusation is that the infogathering is incomplete, and the news suffers, as such:
GATHER NEWS GATHENEWS GATHNEW GATNE GANE GN

Some critics have been labeling this a fatal flaw. In his Miami Herald column, Edward Wasserman asks if the breakneck cycle of breaking online news "a bold new push for reporting that's hasty, fragmented and half-baked?" The Washington and Lee University professor of journalism ethics wonders if new multi-tasking practices -- assigning solo reporters to photograph and videotape events in addition to writing about them -- are simply "diverting energies away from the kind of richly detailed, thoughtful reporting that exemplifies the best of journalism."

He has a point. Reporters can get so wrapped up in the frenzied work of gathering news in multiple media formats that they can't devote time to produce masterful works of written journalism.

In a survey by USC's Online Journalism Review, University of Florida Journalism Professor Mindy McAdams also agrees that the quality of journalism often degrades in the online format.

That "cycle" has contributed to a laxness in fact-checking coupled with an overeagerness to get any "new" (not necessarly news) item online as quickly as possible. The effects are amplified by the perverse habit of online addicts to replicate every juicy morsel the instant they can -- which in some ways can be really stupid, because then you just have everyone copying everyone else. There's a silly sense of "Oo! Oo! I had it first this time!" that certainly reflects back on traditional journalism and the ego-stroking thrill of getting a real scoop -- for which hardly any of these online "revelations" qualify.'

Simon Waldman, online director of the UK's Guardian Unlimited online news source, sees that the nature of online journalism can lend itself to getting the story wrong -- and subsequently, a lack of credibility.

Get the story right. Get it out there as quickly as possible. Do it in that order, and you will have no problems. Do it the other way round, and after a while you won't be taken seriously. It doesn't matter if you're a blogger with a dozen readers a day, or a major news organization with a million or more.

So how are online journalists keeping their edge while also keeping their ethical standards? At this point, most don't really know. In an article titled "Helter Skelter No More:
An Evolving Guidebook for Online Ethics," Bob Steele analyzes a survey of online journalists taken by the Poynter Institute.

Among the questions the survey posed was "How do you address such issues currently?" The results show that there's not much being done. These professionals gave these replies:

• "Right now it's a bit of a wing and a prayer."
• "Right now it's a bit of trial and error."
• "We struggle with the questions as they arise, on the fly. The issues are evolving as the medium evolves, and the answers are evolving, too."
• "We deal with them on a case by case, and, frankly, haphazard basis."
• "We're making it up as we go, and in the future we'd like to have it all figured out."
• "We are mostly addressing the issues as they arise, but it seems that the technical advances are ahead of our thinking or our creation of systems to cope with the change."
• "We currently address these issues case-by-case, erring on the side of caution. In the future, I'd like to create a mission statement and 'guidelines' -- not mandates -- that both editorial and advertising can live with."

It seems that online outlets are working through the bugs of the budding new medium. After several years, consumers can expect to see a system that more closely complies with ethical standards. But at the same time, it may be that our perception of propriety might change with the times.

For example, before the printing press was invented, an individual's knowledge base was limited to the lore of oral tradition and confined to the very wealthy who could afford scribes and manuscripts. Once the press was invented, knowledge was a cheaper commodity. The wealthy no longer held absolute sway over the ignorant and social mobility increased. For aristocrats, this was doubtlessly frightening. There were likely "glitches" in abundance during the early years of the press. Information probably got into the wrong hands, presses printed inflammatory and erroneous information. But in retrospect, few consider this invention problematic. The benefits that stem from the open flow of information far outweigh the risks of information falling into the wrong hands.

In the same way, the internet has changed our society's paradigm. Information is available so freely that it is bound to get into the wrong hands and much of it is bound to be erroneous. But in retrospect, such a vibrant flow of information will be normal, and society will view the development of the internet, almost universally, a good thing.

With that in mind, let's consider what proponents are saying about the accuracy of the internet.