I'm sure we all remember the "Louisville Purge" scare that took place about a month ago, as it raved social media for about a solid week or two and even grabbed attention of national news corporations. But amidst the many organizations that reported on this case, our local Wave 3's memorable coverage of this story really stood out in my mind; like a sore thumb. As I delved deeper into the realm of Wave 3's coverage, their techniques that could be better worded as violations (of the 9 Principles and 7 Yardsticks of Journalism) were evidently much more severe than at first glance.
The first misleading detail that I noticed was the title of one of the articles produced by Wave 3 that I had found: "Threats based on movie taken seriously by police". You can tell right away that this title did not have any informative words as to exactly what was being "taken seriously", meaning it lacked key information that should be highlighted in a headline. And though Wave 3 may have seen this as some sort of method to attract readers due to their ambiguity, I just see this as for what it really is: a foreshadowing of a further violation of the Explanation Principle. As the article went on, Wave 3 did not give any particular "who" or "how" that may have caused this circulating story and only discussed the thought of impending danger by police. Without these further crucial details that their readers definitely needed to be aware of at that time, they proved their violation of the Explanation Principle even more so.
As I went on to find another key article about the Louisville Purge published by Wave 3, I found that the organization had actually managed to violate two of the Principles and Yardsticks in one report. As it happened, in this newer article, Wave 3 had finally given out the pivotal information on how the Louisville Purge was just a hoax and had began through the social media account of a high school student native to Louisville. But the initial feature of their article that I had noticed gave away their violation of the Enterprise Yardstick: the time the story was posted.
At roughly 1 a.m. on August 16th, nearly three days after their first article on this news story had been published, Wave 3 gave out the information that would have saved hundreds of readers from anxiety and worry if provided at an earlier date. But they didn't just release these details after a long period of time, they also released it during the time that the "Louisville Purge" was said to be taking place. Imagine being about 5 excruciating hours into the timespan of this event, with every window, shutter, and door of your home locked up and you huddled in the corner of your basement; imagine receiving an alert from Wave 3 saying not to worry, it was all just a hoax and you can go about your normal lives without a single care of the matter. Wouldn't you have wanted to be informed a tad bit sooner?
The second violation committed was well-defined as I read further and finished this particular article. Like stated beforehand, Wave 3 had indeed provided new vital details that clarified this story, but they had not provided any sign of a source or given credit to another organization that had found the story prior. We know that the story was not solved by them due to how their more informative article was posted at a very late point in time in correlation with the Louisville Purge, and it should also be noted that the actual (original) source that cracked this case was Manual High School's online student news publication, Manual Redeye. This means that Wave 3 could have broken the Verification Principle or the Context Yardstick or even possibly both. They also mentioned that crime in Louisville (that had hit its peak 6+ months ago according to the date provided in their article) had been the reason for such strong police concern. But despite their claim and how simple it could have been, they did not provide a source of an article that speaks of these outbreaks of violence that could have informed their readers in a more in depth light for the reasoning of the police's actions for this event.
At the end of the day, Wave 3's violations likely could have been easily prevented. Their credibility as a source for news could have been kept in tact if they had simply provided credit to the original source of their content. And if they were to try having stronger measures taken to carry out their investigative journalism, they could find both the answers and sources they need immediately through the work they do and be able to provide it to the public in a timely, relevant manner. These possibilities for improvement on their [Wave 3's] part may seem to only be scraping the surface, but when it comes to expectations for journalism and the principles and yardsticks, the basics must be covered in order to receive the response and feedback that may be desired.
No comments:
Post a Comment