Boston Illustrates Messiness of Real-Time Reporting

Wolf Blitzer and All the President's

As it happens, Discovery Channel will air a documentary Sunday titled “All the President’s Men Revisited,” focusing on an event still etched in our collective memory as representing the apex of investigative journalism.

The era and legwork depicted stand in stark contrast to the media coverage the last several days emanating from Boston, where TV viewers and social media have illustrated the messiness of real-time reporting, reflecting the influence of new technologies and channels that didn’t exist when the Watergate story broke more than 40 years ago.

As the Discovery doc notes, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were for a time essentially alone in covering the Watergate story, their scoops landing in the morning editions of the Washington Post. There was no CNN or MSNBC to pick up their stories and gab about them, no website to feed with constant updates, no Twitter to disseminate links to their stories.

Today, it’s unimaginable a horde of competitors and bloggers wouldn’t be poring over every word, with some issuing partisan defenses of the White House and others ratcheting up the pressure to tweet each new scoop before someone else has the opportunity to pounce on it.

The net effect has been to push all kinds of erroneous information into the atmosphere, from CNN’s initial reports of a “dark skinned male” and arrests being made to the New York Post featuring the wrong suspects on its pages.

The mix of limitless time to fill and limited information invariably unleash all kinds of silliness. One local radio host in L.A., for example, kept referencing the A&E series “The First 48,” and citing how important it was to come up with a break in the case during the first two days — her expertise seemingly having been gleaned entirely from watching reality TV. Others took to Twitter referencing scripted programs like “The Americans” and “Homeland,” which is, understandably, how many of us now process such events.

However wistful Woodward, Bernstein and other veteran ink-stained wretches sound in the “All the President’s Men” documentary, journalism certainly wasn’t error-free in the good ol’ days, and there’s much to be gained from the speed with which information is currently available. Watching the coverage late Thursday night and into Friday morning (when a more restrained CNN partly redeemed itself) was riveting — provided, that is, one didn’t fret too much about how little new we were learning, the endless repetition or the errors being splayed out, on TV and via social media, in the melee to be first delivering any new crumb of information.

Inasmuch as it’s a given the rules of the journalism game have forever changed, what’s needed is a sober discussion about guidelines — about what’s considered an acceptable level of inaccuracy amid fast-moving events, especially given the possibility of doing real damage to those wrongly implicated or misrepresented.

Of course, it will require a more sedate, sober moment to have that conversation. And these days — as the media careen from one crisis (some real, others manufactured) to the next — who really has the time for something like that?

Maybe we should schedule the meeting in a dark garage, since the explanation, albeit in a different context, would be much the same: Follow the money.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 1

Leave a Reply

1 Comment

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. EK says:

    The emphasis on speed of delivery vs. the accuracy of what;s reported is the most troubling. Most people would prefer accurate reporting, even if it takes a little longer, to the urgent revelation of uncorroborated “facts.” One thing that Woodward & Bernstein had on their side was time … and Ben Bradley and other editors to examine their work before it appeared. Today’s TV anchors and reporters, with cameras and microphones (and cell phones) in their faces, must fill open air with anything they can, largely unedited, and are in a constant quest for a tidbit of info that will trump the competition. Just watching Savannah Guthrie trying to deal with the Boston mayhem this a.m. was a good example. She did pretty well if you discount the deer in the headlights look that sometimes crossed her face as she fielded the bombast no doubt coming through her earpiece. (Sidebar: Matt Lauer did himself no favor, as it turned out, by electing to go to Texas to cover the aftermath of the fertilizer plant explosion. He never made it to air.)

More TV News from Variety