Reflections -- media coverage
Sep. 14th, 2006 12:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eveglassI'd like to take a minute to reflect on the media coverage for yesterday's shooting. Despite the grumblings I've heard around some of the livejournals I visit, I was very impressed with the coverage yesterday. In fact, I thought it was nothing less than exceptional.
Four things in particular struck me about the coverage yesterday:
1. The coverage was immediate. Phrases such as "the gunman is still in the building," "students are currently barricaded inside," "the swat team is in the process of performing a sweep of the building," and so many others all point to the fact that the media were on the scene, reporting, within minutes of the first call to 911, and didn't stop in all the time I was listening (until about 8 pm). They broadcast press releases as they were happening, with simultaneous translation for those who didn't speak French (or English). All this was practically instantaneous: an event happened, and they broadcast immediately.
2. The coverage was everywhere. I found out about the shooting at 1 pm, about 20 minutes after the initial 911 call. I, at home in TMR, was nowhere near the site. More impressively, my friend from Russia found out about the situation fifteen minutes later. We were listening to different feeds (I to 940 News, he to CBC), and he was updating me on things he'd heard that I hadn't. People as far away as Britain and Australia knew about the shootings in real-time.
3. The coverage was highly professional, and provided a unified front. 940 News, from the beginning, was exceptional in pointing out which information they had were unverified reports, and which were confirmed. They listed the various stories they heard, even when they conflicted. Even after the press conferences, they pointed out discrepancies between the official story and the anecdotal reports they'd received from listeners. At around 8 pm, a news network (CTV or CBC, I don't remember which) was reporting that one of the victims was confirmed dead. The 940 News party line, within seconds of that report, was, "[news network] is reporting that a female victim, twenty years old, is confirmed dead. 940 News is working to confirm this story, but as of yet, we have not received that confirmation. So, [news network] reports that a victim is confirmed dead. 940 News will keep you updated about our own progress on this story." Within seconds! All the networks are watching each other: they know when a story doesn't jive with their own reports, and they work to make sure their information is as up-to-date as possible.
4. The coverage forced very speedy official reports. The first press conferences (one by the mayor and chief of police; one at the Montreal General Hospital) both took place at 4:30, less than 4 hours after the initial 911 call. Of course they couldn't answer all the reporters' questions. Of course they didn't have the full story. But the idea that, as little as a few hours after the shooting was resolved (with the gunman "neutralized," read: killed), the official word was already going out. By 8 pm, a coherent, official story, was already circulating. The crime scene was still under investigation, the perpetrator wasn't yet identified... and yet the official word begins to come out.
It might be argued that not all of these four points are positive. Speedy official reports (#4) can lead to sloppiness, cross-coverage (#3) can lead to rogue, unconfirmed stories dominating the media (as happened in the minutes after the attack), instantaneous (#1) and universal (#2) coverage can lead to panic... but I disagree. The thought that coherent, unified news is spread quickly and efficiently leaves me awed at the state of technology today.
Consider: two hundred years ago, during the American Revolution, it could take months for a trans-Atlantic crossing. By the time a letter was sent from the colonies to the king, and the reply was returned, the original situation would have been long-resolved. In the days of horse-travel, it might take a message three or four days to reach Toronto from Montreal, and an equal amount of time to return one... and that's if there were plenty of changes of horses and riders. If the mayor of Montreal sent a "come help!" message to Toronto, it would take a week just to know whether the cavalry was on the way!
Some people might argue that I'm being deliberately unfair. So let's take a more recent example.
At Pennsic this year, the major news story was the disbanding of the chiurgeonate (volunteer first-aid service) in favour of a professional EMS service. No, this is in no way on the same magnitude as yesterday's shootings. Lives were not in danger. On the other hand, it was a decision that affected many people's lives, and tempers raged hot, both for and against it.
Pennsic, though large, is not terribly so. There are 11,000 campers, approximately, which is about the size of the student population of Dawson College. It is possible to walk the entire length of the Pennsic site, from the northernmost part of the woods battle to the southernmost tip of the Causeway, in less than an hour. Most people congregate within a very small space (ie: the food court and merchants' area) at some point over the course of a day.
Furthermore, we do not only have period technology at Pennsic. We have cell phones, walkie talkies, golf carts, cars, and other tools of modern communication and speed. We have a daily newspaper to communicate important news to everyone on site.
So it was shocking to me that, nearly a week after the decision to disband the chirugeonate was announced, there were still conflicting reports. Why did the mayor do it? What, exactly, had happened? Was the press (ie: the Pennsic Independent) under censorship? Were the chiurgeons? Were the chirugeons allowed to return to work? Were they forced to wear mundane clothing? The list of questions continued without end, as did the various answers I heard to them.
Pennsic: 11,000 people. A small, enclosed site. An important issue. One week later, there were still as many stories as people to tell them.
Yesterday: the entire world. An important issue. Within minutes, news was reporting. Within hours, there was official word. By the end of the night, the entire world had a unified story that matched.
Are there discrepancies? Sure. Do we have all the information? Of course not. Is there media bias? Almost certainly. But the news is forthcoming. As soon as something is announced (and sometimes before), the world knows. Radio and TV broadcast it. People with picture-cameras text-message their friends. The blogosphere comes alive with speculation and sympathy. Within minutes.
I am truly impressed. Looking at our world, I am stunned at the effectiveness of our media. No matter what people say, they did good yesterday, and they deserve our thanks.
Four things in particular struck me about the coverage yesterday:
1. The coverage was immediate. Phrases such as "the gunman is still in the building," "students are currently barricaded inside," "the swat team is in the process of performing a sweep of the building," and so many others all point to the fact that the media were on the scene, reporting, within minutes of the first call to 911, and didn't stop in all the time I was listening (until about 8 pm). They broadcast press releases as they were happening, with simultaneous translation for those who didn't speak French (or English). All this was practically instantaneous: an event happened, and they broadcast immediately.
2. The coverage was everywhere. I found out about the shooting at 1 pm, about 20 minutes after the initial 911 call. I, at home in TMR, was nowhere near the site. More impressively, my friend from Russia found out about the situation fifteen minutes later. We were listening to different feeds (I to 940 News, he to CBC), and he was updating me on things he'd heard that I hadn't. People as far away as Britain and Australia knew about the shootings in real-time.
3. The coverage was highly professional, and provided a unified front. 940 News, from the beginning, was exceptional in pointing out which information they had were unverified reports, and which were confirmed. They listed the various stories they heard, even when they conflicted. Even after the press conferences, they pointed out discrepancies between the official story and the anecdotal reports they'd received from listeners. At around 8 pm, a news network (CTV or CBC, I don't remember which) was reporting that one of the victims was confirmed dead. The 940 News party line, within seconds of that report, was, "[news network] is reporting that a female victim, twenty years old, is confirmed dead. 940 News is working to confirm this story, but as of yet, we have not received that confirmation. So, [news network] reports that a victim is confirmed dead. 940 News will keep you updated about our own progress on this story." Within seconds! All the networks are watching each other: they know when a story doesn't jive with their own reports, and they work to make sure their information is as up-to-date as possible.
4. The coverage forced very speedy official reports. The first press conferences (one by the mayor and chief of police; one at the Montreal General Hospital) both took place at 4:30, less than 4 hours after the initial 911 call. Of course they couldn't answer all the reporters' questions. Of course they didn't have the full story. But the idea that, as little as a few hours after the shooting was resolved (with the gunman "neutralized," read: killed), the official word was already going out. By 8 pm, a coherent, official story, was already circulating. The crime scene was still under investigation, the perpetrator wasn't yet identified... and yet the official word begins to come out.
It might be argued that not all of these four points are positive. Speedy official reports (#4) can lead to sloppiness, cross-coverage (#3) can lead to rogue, unconfirmed stories dominating the media (as happened in the minutes after the attack), instantaneous (#1) and universal (#2) coverage can lead to panic... but I disagree. The thought that coherent, unified news is spread quickly and efficiently leaves me awed at the state of technology today.
Consider: two hundred years ago, during the American Revolution, it could take months for a trans-Atlantic crossing. By the time a letter was sent from the colonies to the king, and the reply was returned, the original situation would have been long-resolved. In the days of horse-travel, it might take a message three or four days to reach Toronto from Montreal, and an equal amount of time to return one... and that's if there were plenty of changes of horses and riders. If the mayor of Montreal sent a "come help!" message to Toronto, it would take a week just to know whether the cavalry was on the way!
Some people might argue that I'm being deliberately unfair. So let's take a more recent example.
At Pennsic this year, the major news story was the disbanding of the chiurgeonate (volunteer first-aid service) in favour of a professional EMS service. No, this is in no way on the same magnitude as yesterday's shootings. Lives were not in danger. On the other hand, it was a decision that affected many people's lives, and tempers raged hot, both for and against it.
Pennsic, though large, is not terribly so. There are 11,000 campers, approximately, which is about the size of the student population of Dawson College. It is possible to walk the entire length of the Pennsic site, from the northernmost part of the woods battle to the southernmost tip of the Causeway, in less than an hour. Most people congregate within a very small space (ie: the food court and merchants' area) at some point over the course of a day.
Furthermore, we do not only have period technology at Pennsic. We have cell phones, walkie talkies, golf carts, cars, and other tools of modern communication and speed. We have a daily newspaper to communicate important news to everyone on site.
So it was shocking to me that, nearly a week after the decision to disband the chirugeonate was announced, there were still conflicting reports. Why did the mayor do it? What, exactly, had happened? Was the press (ie: the Pennsic Independent) under censorship? Were the chiurgeons? Were the chirugeons allowed to return to work? Were they forced to wear mundane clothing? The list of questions continued without end, as did the various answers I heard to them.
Pennsic: 11,000 people. A small, enclosed site. An important issue. One week later, there were still as many stories as people to tell them.
Yesterday: the entire world. An important issue. Within minutes, news was reporting. Within hours, there was official word. By the end of the night, the entire world had a unified story that matched.
Are there discrepancies? Sure. Do we have all the information? Of course not. Is there media bias? Almost certainly. But the news is forthcoming. As soon as something is announced (and sometimes before), the world knows. Radio and TV broadcast it. People with picture-cameras text-message their friends. The blogosphere comes alive with speculation and sympathy. Within minutes.
I am truly impressed. Looking at our world, I am stunned at the effectiveness of our media. No matter what people say, they did good yesterday, and they deserve our thanks.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-14 07:26 pm (UTC)We really do live in a science-fiction world and just don't recognise it often enough.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-14 08:25 pm (UTC)The only criticism I had with any of the reports was the fact that they kept trying to make connections to the 1989 UdM shootings. Only connections were "school" and "gun", but too many reports tried to make connections.
Of course, watching CNN and NBC try to explain "a CEGEP" amused me greatly. :)
Cu,
Andrew
no subject
Date: 2006-09-14 08:30 pm (UTC)I wasn't watching the US news sources, but I imaging that would have been amusing, yes.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-14 11:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-15 12:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-15 12:28 am (UTC)It was scary to hear that it was happening, but on the other hand it was also impressive how fast they seemed to take him down.