While we all have gotten the story from main stream media the how gets more and more interesting.
From a journalistic point of view the evolution as it happened was pretty fascinating. This isn’t to downplay the event in any way, it’s just an opportunity to see how journalism works as an entity.
It is obvious that reporting is weighed by both time and accuracy, and there is something to be said for both.
As coverage began most outlets were met with a choice, do we post easily gotten, fast-breaking information from possibly questionable sources? Or do we wait?
Surprisingly a large number of what would have been considered credible news sources got that one way wrong. The biggest offender was the AP itself. This caused a ripple effect of wrong information involving the arrest of a suspect throughout many of the large news entities like CNN and FOX.
There is value in both scenarios, the question is where do you fall.
If you are going to be first, you need to be first consistently. Otherwise it isn’t worth it to be risk being sometimes inaccurate. You need to have the resources available to produce.
The Cameron Observer will never be able to compete with The New York Times. That being said, even if you are first consistently, be first and accurate. Confirm info from multiple sources before rushing to release.
Don’t get too big for your britches, play to the public that you fall in.
Wait and localize if you work for a smaller medium, wait until you have the facts right. Be first if it’s in your back yard, otherwise, just wait and fully develop the story.