Barrett Robbins and the Media

[albionmoonlight]

I am sick of reading editorial opinions that start "Now, I can't pretend to know what happened to Barrett Robbins that day, but . . . " and then give long detailed opinions on the writer's view of the situation based on the rumors that they choose to believe.

It's like a reporter starting a story by saying "I did not watch the Super Bowl, and I don't have access to a box score--all I know about the game comes from several unconfirmed conflicting reports from witnesses of various and dubious credibility, but . . ." and then giving a long detailed analysis of the game.

I know that it is easy to attack the media, but to see "reporters" openly admit that they don't know the facts and then opine at length about the situation seems below the already low standard to which I now hold journalists.

[mrskippy]

It's not reporters, it's editors.

Editor: Give me 10 inches on Barrett Robbins.
Reporter: Well, we really don't know much about it.
Editor: Write what you know and just stretch it out. We gotta fill space.
Reporter: Alrighty. Do I have to put a byline?
Editor: Your writing it aren't you?

Newspapers today are about content, not quality. Editors would rather reporters write lots of stories and not focus as much on quality journalism.

Reporters are expected to write the story no matter what. Stories that center around rumors are the hardest to write.

In this case, the information is confidential. If he is under medical care, that information is personal. That's why no doctors or hospital have been quoted. They would get sued.

So in order to get the story you go to third-party sources and get as many as possible. If there are conflicting reports, you report it as such. If stories match, you report it as such.

Again these types of stories are the toughest to write. But they must be written. So reporters do what they can. Sad but true.

Skippy