It rang true when I first read the quote in 2018, and it’s as applicable today.
Also as applicable: Journalism professionals, don’t take the easy route.* If you don’t know something, say so. While speculation fills word count and air time, readers and viewers would better be served by a shrug of the shoulders. It’s okay not to know.
Case in point: This story from Quillette.
In brief, Scandinavian Airlines apparently put out a commercial meant to communicate the point that getting to know the world outside of one’s own borders is preferable to blind nationalism. Or something like that. But the message in the ad was so terribly presented and researched, it was picked apart online by critics of just about every stripe.
The company and some media reactions?
The day after the ad was released, the airline wrote in a press statement that it was investigating a suspected “attack” on social media – a theory which was uncritically picked up by leading international outlets. “When analyzing the pattern and volume of reactions we have reason to suspect an online attack and that the campaign has been hijacked,” SAS wrote in its statement.
Some media immediately began speculating on possible Russian involvement, a theory which the company did nothing to deny. Reuters claimed that the ad was simply “ myths about Scandinavia,” yet had nevertheless become “victim of an online hate campaign, particularly form nationalist and right-wing groups.”
Which sounds right, except for one thing: It wasn’t.
[E]xperts have rejected the idea that the company was victim of a coordinated attack, either particularly by “right-wing groups,” or by Russia. And a number of mainstream Scandinavian media outlets and commentators had been among the most vocal critics.
But by evoking existing fears of right-wing extremism, online hate campaigns, and real threats to national security, the company was able to deflect basic journalistic scrutiny.
The company cried wolf, as the author says. And international outlets – where the rest of the world would source their news – failed at their job by parroting the company’s line, rather than looking to see if the claims of derpism were true.
Journalists, don’t respond to derpism with herpisms of your own. Readers are still going to get things wrong and fly off the handle and trot out any of their own weird little pet theories. But that is not your job, journalists. Your job is to get it right. Find out what’s going on. Don’t speculate. And if you don’t know, in the end, say that.
Credibility, I know from personal experience, is expensive to buy. And no matter how credible you may be on many an issue, throw your credibility away enough times and you can’t buy it back. And the critics are always circling. Some with their own herp and derp, to be sure. Don’t respond in kind.
*As a reformed journalist, I confess to taking the easy route many times. Trust me, it’s not the way to go.
No comments:
Post a Comment