Journalists Should Consider Reporting Facts and Conversation

Television newsrooms are interesting and exciting places to be when there is big breaking news. The news of Michael Jackson’s death sent our newsroom into a frenzy of activity moments before the evening newscasts were set to begin.

Rundowns that producers had worked all day to lay out were tossed out the window to make room for breaking news coverage. Reporters (myself included) were reassigned and asked to work double shifts. For the most part, news people are OK with all of this. In fact, despite the furloughs, and pay cuts, most of us stay in this business for high intensity moments brought by breaking news.

But there is a new dynamic in the coverage of breaking news, and it is being brought on by… you guessed it… social networking and the Internet.

During periods of national breaking news, local TV news outlets rely heavily on their network of national news affiliates. We look to the newsgathering resources of CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox to help us put together the facts.

Almost all of the national news outfits were quick to report Jackson’s hospitalization. The news spread like wildfire on blogs, Facebook and Twitter. Tens of thousands of messages were sent between friends.

To the best of my knowledge, TMZ.com was the first to report that Michael Jackson had died. At the same time, tradition news outlets like CNN and the Los Angeles Times couldn’t confirm it. It didn’t matter.

TMZ’s report spread across the Internet at lightning speed. Within moments, the news of Jackson’s death was essentially a common knowledge.

Immediately, news outlets were presented with a dilemma: Should continue reporting the facts that they know are true, waiting to independently confirm Jackson’s death? Or should they accept TMZ’s report as true, and report that Jackson has died?

Many of the traditional news outlets chose to wait for independent confirmation of Jackson’s death, a journalistically prudent decision. But, for every minute between TMZ’s breaking of the news and CNN’s confirmation, CNN became less relevant in the coverage. They were no longer part of the conversation.

News consumers had already moved on. Tributes were posted to Facebook. Tens of thousands of messages were streaming across Twitter. Jackson had died, no matter what CNN was reporting.

But hindsight is always 20/20. “What if TMZ had been wrong?” many journalists might ask. The answer to that question is uncertain.

The important lesson for journalists is this: We can no longer consider only reporting the facts. We should also consider the conversation. That conversation is a part of our coverage now. If we choose to ignore our audience, we’ll soon find that our audience is ignoring us.