The Frenzy

Competition. Deadlines.  In the rush to get the story out first, especially in the atmosphere where news and information is instant, sometimes the facts get misconstrued or worse turn out to be inaccurate. It is easy to say in hindsight that time should have been taken to evaluate the information. They should have triple checked the facts and cultivated a fully accurate picture. The reality of the matter is people do not want to wait for that story. They want the most up-to-date information as it happens. If it is not provided, people will just go to another source that has the information. This means readership is lost, but more importantly the credibility of the source that did not report it is questioned.  How come they did not cover it when others did? What else do they not report? Can they be trusted if they are withholding this information? These questions began swirling in the curious minds of people.

Has the audience dictated this need to be constantly fed information or have journalists created this environment? I think that both groups have influence on each other, but the question of who initiated it is not black and white. I classify it as one of those “what came first the chicken or the egg?” situations.  Journalists put the information out there because it is their job to reflect light on what happens in our society. Their audience expects them to provide this information and when they do not, the very core value of journalism is questioned---truth.

Unfortunately, when this need for information becomes apparent is during stories that illuminate human tragedy. People have a fascination with watching others fail or be struck by misfortunes. It is unfortunate, but true. Nobody would have talked about the lives of two Fort Worth college students, but the murder of two Fort Worth college students in 1993 makes front-page news. The public becomes fixated on it and wants to know all the juicy details. This fixation puts journalists in a tough situation. They must provide the up-to-date news because it is what the public wants to read. This means though some information that comes to light could be invalidated at a later date. In the murder case of the two Fort Worth girls, two of the police’s early suspects were eventually cleared, but this came after their lives became magnified under the lens of the media.

Although not on the same level as murder, the recent events at TCU bring about a similar public fascination and sensational headlines. Journalists can easily get caught up in feeding the public’s need for information, but I caution them to take a moment to think about the repercussions of reporting information before it is verified.Is the information really valuable if it is not verified by an authoritative source?