I spent 30+ years in television news. I continue to watch the industry closely. I can’t recall EVER seeing an apology this detailed and, well, apologetic. Usually, it’s a line or two and you get it over as quickly as you can. Obviously, this “ooops” demanded more details. By the way, in the interest of full disclosure, I worked for the station involved for 11 years.
KARK issues apology for mentioning Conley’s name
KARK-TV issued an apology for reporting that former Arkansas track star Mike Conley was involved in the purchase of a car for Razorbacks running back Darren McFadden: Yesterday KARK Channel 4 and the Razorback Nation reported that the University of Arkansas is looking into a compliance issue involving Darren McFadden. The story centers around a new [...]
1 response so far ↓
TracyW // December 29, 2007 at 10:59 pm |
Doug –
I didn’t get to see the full report or apology. I wonder if the detail and, well, explicit nature of the apology is necessary in light of the willingness for other media outlets to jump onto the story, claiming innocence and responsible journalism by “attributing” the story to another source?
In the “old days” when you and I were working, nobody else would have touched the story unless someone on the news team could verify the story through independent sources.
In the “old days” having to attribute a story to competitor was shameful — it was admitting the guys down the street whipped our tails on a huge story.
Today, news outlets don’t think twice about broadcasting, printing, or responding online to a rumor — especially if they can attribute to another source.
T’would seem that attribution is no longer a confession of sound defeat. Instead, attribution is more of a childlike, “He said it first! I knew it sounded wrong!” game of gossip.