Normally, a death penalty case would have marginal relevance to media law class, but it certainly reminds me of Chapter 1, which discusses the American legal system. Indeed, the death penalty represents, perhaps, the strongest expression of government power over the individual -- the ability to put a citizen to death for certain crimes.
But my interest, in particular, is what unfolded last night as I followed media coverage of the case. CNN and other news outlets were reporting live from the scene outside the prison where Davis was scheduled to be executed. Dozens and dozens of law enforcement officials, many in full riot gear, stood guard in front of the prison entrance. Across the street, demonstrators and Troy Davis supporters chanted, sang and peacefully gathered.
I had just gotten home shortly after 6 p.m. Central Time yesterday evening. I checked my iPhone and turned on CNN, which reported that the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to consider a last-minute appeal from Davis' lawyers. This meant that the execution was being delayed until the high court ruled on this appeal.
Meanwhile, I checked the National Public Radio app on my iPhone and saw this, at 6:25 p.m. Central Time:
At this time, NPR reported that Davis had been executed.
Confused, I checked other media outlets, and I kept checking the NPR app on my iPhone.
Even 41 minutes after that story version had been updated, I still saw NPR reporting that Davis had been executed:
I even posted on my Twitter account, asking why NPR News was reporting that Davis had been executed, when it was clear that was untrue (please excuse the misspelling of Davis' first name).
It wasn't until 6:49 p.m. Central Time that NPR updated the story on the app to reflect that Davis was still alive and that the court was considering a late appeal.
As you may know, the Supreme Court denied Davis' last appeal about three hours later and Davis was pronounced dead at 10:08 p.m. Central Time.
Though I tagged NPR News in my tweets, I've yet to hear why this happened. I suspect I know what happened. I figure the news story reporting on Davis' execution was in the queue and ready to go. Shortly after 6 p.m. Eastern Time, it was posted. But not verifying the information was a significant mistake.
I understand. Mistakes happen. But how long should it take to correct the mistake? Is it unreasonable to expect NPR to correct the mistake as soon as possible? Is 40 minutes too long a period of time to consider reasonable? I think so. If it was corrected with 10 or 15 minutes, I would be more understanding.
But for at least 43 minutes, and potentially as long as 47 minutes since the last time the story was updated at 7:02 p.m. Eastern Time, NPR was still reporting that Davis was dead, when it was clearly not true.
I expect more from a media outlet such as NPR. I'd be interested in hearing an explanation as to why this happened. I've not seen any media criticism about this, but I cannot be the only person in the world to have noticed this last night, could I?
If you'd like to comment about NPR's coverage, or if you'd like to comment on the Davis execution, please do so in the comments.
34 comments:
I'm still upset about this. Coming primarily from a print background, I find it unacceptable to think that media outlets can publish whatever nonsense they want online and then get away cleanly by merely backspacing the errors out and clicking the update button. Print publications correct the error in their next edition and apologize for the mistake, and that says a lot about the integrity they have to maintain. They'd never get away with pretending that they weren't in the wrong, and I think that's a standard at which we should hold all media regardless of whether or not they have the option to cover their tracks. We all make mistakes, even as professionals, but just because the technology is better doesn't mean that we shouldn't own up to them.
Brittani Wray
T-TH 2 p.m.
Here is the link that I mentioned today in class about the 10 reasons why he should not have been executed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/21/troy-davis-10-reasons?intcmp=239
Marc Escalante
TTh 2:00
As far as the NPR issue goes, I think that is pretty unacceptable for such a reputable Media outlet. Big mistake on their part.
For the Troy Davis execution, I know I'm pretty upset about it. It seems like it was hotly contested for awhile, but in particular a lot more recently. The case had so much doubt, and such weird flip floppy witness accounts.
Danielle Verhaeghe; TTH 9:30 a.m.
I found NPR's recent false reporting blunder to be very disappointing. NPR is (usually) a respected news source and its viewers rely on it for prompt reliable news. I looked further into the situation for an apology or explanation from NPR, but was unable to find one. Instead I found a similar case from earlier this year.
During the Arizona shooting NPR reported the death of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in an effort to be the first news source to make a report on the violent situation. NPR News' executive editor sent out an apology to Giffords' family. The apology is as follows:
"This was a serious and grave error, I apologize for this mistake to the family of Rep. Giffords, to the families of everyone affected by the shootings, to our listeners and to our readers."
After reading this, I was deeply enraged about NPR's more recent mistake in, once again, reporting a death that had not occurred. However in this case the statement was not retracted nor was there an apology. The way NPR handled the situation, or should I say the lack of handling the situation, shows the lack of interest in a life that was taken on death row. Whether or not I agree or do not agree with the execution of Troy Davis is irrelevant, this is about the respect for a human life, the people who are involved, unbiased apologies and reliable news sources.
If you are interested in reading the article you can find it at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/media-outlets-apologize-a_n_806603.html
I work in TV News and if my station ran something like NPR did heads would have been rolling. I've found out that no matter how fun or wacky a newsroom gets the information and stories we put out are serious. Not one story is taken lightly.
For example, if NPR was our first source, which it isn't, and our producer saw that info regarding Davis' death I know for a fact he/she will look for other sources to verify. Nothing goes on air until it is confirmed.
I believe that 40 minutes is entirely too long for this mistake to go unnoticed. I understand that accidents happen but people working for places like NPR should be checking their facts as well as looking at what the competition is publishing in order to stay on top of things. Newspapers don't have the ability to correct mistakes in their print editions until the next issue but NPR online and apps certainly do. If they promise up-to-date coverage and let's face it that is basically what an app implies then they should be up-to-date. You can't predict the future and it seems that's what they did instead of doing their job. They should also admit when they're at fault instead of avoiding the subject and hoping people won't notice because some people are certainly more observant than others and will catch on.
I also agree with my classmates who stated that NPR made a huge mistake, obviously by doing this, but whats worst is that they didn't corrected it or at least apologize for such a big error.
Im still in disbelief that the execution occurred, i think its another immense miss for our justice system.
What likely happened was that NPR had the story queued so it would immediately be out once 7 CST, the appointed time of his execution, would pass. Of course, severe oversight is the second problem, as they should have been prompt to remove the article from the queue as soon as an appeal was attempted. This does sadden me, as I listen to NPR frequently and respect it above any media outlet.
Davis's execution was a travesty in American judicial history. Despite the inconsistent evidence, the witnesses recanting, and everything else that could point to Davis being not guilty, it is tragic that the courts left a man to die for sake of convenience.
I believe that 40 minutes or however long it took for NPR to update an incorrect story is ethically and morally wrong without a given apology. Even with the updated story, NPR remained incorrect on the content of the story. NPR continued to report on the death of an inmate who was not yet dead. In most other situations where a news outlet publishes an inaccurate report on the death of either a government official, professional, or citizen an immediate apology is given. It seems as though a death row inmate does not receive the same amount of compassion as other individuals do within the media.
Lindsey Drake
T-TH 9:30-10:50
The fact that NPR left this false story up for so long is unacceptable. Even more so, that they didn't acknowledge that they did wrong. If it was taken down within a reasonable amount of time (about 5-10min) it would have been somewhat understandable. This lessens their credibility, for me. This is a major mistake on NPR's part and they will probably lose some of their audience.
Amaris Sanchez
TTH 9:30am
First, I agree with the dissatisfaction about the rate at which NPR corrected its mistake and the fact that they didn't issue an apology. I read a lot of online news and do know mistakes and typos are made on a regular basis, but a error of this magnitude left on the site for 47 minutes is ridiculous. CNN, The New York Times and other news outlets that I've noticed mistakes in a few times generally had them corrected in five to ten minutes if not sooner.
Second, in regards to Troy Davis' case I think that there was enough doubt to at least give him a new trial. Davis maintained his innocence the entire time, there was little physical evidence to implicate him and even witnesses recanted their statements. Taking these facts into account, the matter of his execution going as scheduled seems entirely unfair.
While I don't think what NPR did is acceptable at all, I can understand why they did it. I'm assuming they thought they would lose more credibility by correcting their mistake than they would by ignoring it. While readers who caught the mistake are rightfully upset with the error, the majority of NPR's readers probably didn't notice the error whatsoever. Again, I don't support NPR's decision to ignore the mistake, but I believe it was a move to preserve their image.
Corey H.
TTH 2p.m.
As all have stated above, I too, am dissatisfied and shocked that such a mistake like this could occur.
I don't understand how NPR, a news outlet that the public seeks for certainty and truth can make such an inaccurate statement before verifying the exact details of such a case.
I'm shocked that it took over 40 minutes for them to correct their mistake. Perhaps if they had fixed the error no more than 10 minutes, I would feel a bit more at ease.
To say the least, NPR made a huge mistake that should have some type of repercussion.
-Lindsey M.
I also agree with many of the above comments. That fact that a reliable (usually) and crediable news source such as NPR did this is mind-boggling. I could see this maybe coming from another source, just so they could be the first to report it... but NPR?? Come on...
Also, I am still puzzled why he was not granted another stay of execution. The law says that is must be found guilty BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT. And it sounds like in this case there is definetley a resonable DOUBT. I think that if the state is going to give someone the ultimate penalty they better be 110% sure and that there is no doubt. As bad it it sounds, its better to have a guilty man walking around as a member of society than put an innocent man to death.
I agree with the most of the class. I'm surprised NPR let that happen. Even if it was on the queue, it should have been caught for more than 40 minutes and there should have been a correction or some sort of recognition that they realized their mistake.
The press is already have struggle with the public about its credibility and this just gives the critics another example.
-Sarah V. 2 p.m.
On NPR's bad judgement Corey H. above says,"I believe it was amove to preserve thier image" and that the majority of NPR's readers probably did not notice the error anyway...Alarming! Corey, what about the ethics that govern good journalism? you just thro it out of the window? I dont thin so! NPR should be ashamed, period.
As far as Davis's execution, I think he had a long criminal police wrap sheet,had it been his first run with the police, the stay of execution would have been enforced (probably
-Lynn T. Anderson
-
If NPR isn't checking fact on this, what else are they skimping on? Credibility is certainly key, so I think it's unacceptable that it took so long for the mistake to be corrected.
Harvey TTH 2 p.m.
I'm a pretty dedicated NPR fan and the fact that they didn't correct their mistake immediately is terrible. I feel like 10 minutes would have been too long for incorrect information to be up without someone fixing it. It hurts their credibility and it doesn't help when I know of many people that already question the credibility of news outlets. I often cite NPR as a credible source and this honestly just looked bad.
Jaclyn D TTH 9:30 a.m.
I think this amount of time is unacceptable. Many, many people use NPR as one of their main news sources, and if that was you...you could of seen this and thought, "that's that." and gone on with whatever else you had going on that night. A news source that is as reputable as NPR should be prepared for situations such as this. In the case of a death penalty, everything should be right now topic, for it is not something that happens every day. I do understand that things happen, but 47 minutes with NO update, is upsetting. Maybe a minute...maybe. Hopefully, NPR will make a statement about what happened to clear the air, but I feel if they haven't done anything yet, it is not going to happen.
Katie McElmurray
TTH 9:30-10:50
I'm pretty surprised a mistake like this was made by NPR and it's weird it went practically unnoticed. I mean, I'll still listen to NPR being seeing as they remain one of my favorite news sources, but this does strike me as odd. It would be nice to see an explanation. If what's reported is wrong information, then it should be immediately changed upon hearing of it's falsity. Like someone commented above about the Gabrielle Giffords shooting and NPR reporting she had died... maybe they like jumping the gun, wanting to be the first news source with the answers. Which isn't good journalism at all. So I'm disappointed that this happened. It's lazy reporting in my opinion. As far as the death penalty goes, I think it's an archaic method for the way society lives today. I've read research that says it's less expensive to give someone life in prison, if that's the concern. But I don't think money is the concern when it comes to the death penalty. It's more of a compensation for families to deal with murder. And there have been people who have been killed who've done some terrible things. And no doubt innocent people have been killed. But to me, killing them doesn't change what they did. It would make me feel sick that I was sinking to that level. Is it really justice?
I think the mistake that NPR made was pretty unacceptable. I know mistakes happen, but come on. 40 minutes is too long and I feel they should have made some sort of apology.
With regards to the execution, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand I do find it questionable that some of the witnesses recanted their statements, but on the other I feel that the court system worked like it is supposed to. He went through all of the appeals processes and the verdict was the same. Nobody may never know the exact truth, but we have a system in place and I have to believe that justice was served. Some people argue that lehtal injection in cruel and unusual punishment, but being shot in the head seems pretty cruel and unusual to me. The officer's family seems to be forgotten in all of this and they deserve justice as well.
T/Th 2-3:20
Kyle Muscarello TTh 9:30 a.m.
I think it is unnacceptable that they put that story out there. The Media doesn't have room to make mistakes like that.
This is absolutely unacceptable. One trend that I have noticed in this mobile age is that some media outlets don't always hold their social mediums to the same standards as they would with print or broadcast. I feel that some might even think of the social media as "coming second." This is a very foolish and unprofessional way of thinking especially in a time when more and more rely on smart phone apps and social media as their primary source of news.
Ryan Smothers
TTH 2pm
Dalida Umuhire
TTH 2pm
To me what NPR did was unprofessional, a bad look on their part. Considering they are a very well known and followed news source, things like this shouldn't be allowed to happen. I do not care whether they are busy or what not, there is an editor and even before the editor is a writer, who should be reporting correct information.
Another part of me though this was for of a "you got it here first" thing, many platforms love being the first to report the newest developments. But regardless of what their issue was, there is nothing that can better the situation. That was a huge mistake on their part!
I saw the link below and thought about this post. Some newspapers also jumped the gun regarding Amanda Knox verdict and published false information.
Warning: there is a news video that starts playing when you click the link.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/newspapers-post-wrong-amanda-knox-verdict-mystery-meaning-154354928.html
So my question is: is this where newspapers are going in regards to online content? I know there's always that need to be break the news first, but is it worth being first if you report false information and ruin your credibility? Also, is it even ethical to write out the news before the event actually happens? I don't think so. I understand writing the background information as that's already happened, but to write out what they assume will happen is crossing some lines, for sure.
I think that this is terrible and unacceptable. This should have been up for a maximum of half an hour. I guess they didn't feel the need to issue an apology because no one mentioned NPR's mistake. What I wonder is were they not watching other news channels or observing what other media outlets had to say? How could they possibly miss this. I think it is terrible.
It's bad enough publishing something that is not true or misspelling someone's name, but to say a man was dead when he was not seems way worse!
Though this mistake appears unprofessional, I do not believe this will leave any lasting negative impact for NPR. It is their journalistic duty to provide news as quickly and efficiently as possible, which they normally do very well. I must agree however, that this is no minor grammer or spelling error. I think what this all boils down to is a perfect example of how the world of journalism has changed. We get our news faster than ever thanks to internet and social media, yet we are surprised when this info arrives with mistakes.
Gerardo A. T-TH 9:30A.M.
I agree that NPR waited much to long to update and corrrect the story. I recall looking up my Twitter and seeing reports from AP, CNN, Fox News and even Yahoo! News reporting the opposite to NPR on Troy Davis' death. For me, the fact that NPR never offerd an apology or even aknowledged their mistake was too much. No credibility. I unfollowed NPR a couple of days later.
Also I read the list provided via link by Marc. I disagree with the 10th reasaon, being placed on death row three times is cruel and unusal punishments in of its own. I'm sure that comes with the territory when you appeal for your life. I agree there were quite a bit of shaddy facts in the case but cruel to be placed on death row three times? I don't see it.
I was just as upset about this as you were. I feel any publication in charge of informing the public should take it very seriously and exercise extra care when dealing with stories, especially high profile cases like that. I understand news is a very time oriented business. It's about who gets the story first and who does it best. I feel sad that it's more about that these days rather than taking their job seriously. They could've at least corrected their mistake. It's embarrassing for them and I don't even know why they wouldn't want to fix it. I feel things like this is why people have such a distrust with the media.
Joe Teagle T-Th 2pm
As soon-to-be members of the media, we all know the speed of social media. We know how fast information can travel, AND be corrected. For something to take that long to fix in this age of social media is completely unprofessional.
J. P. Walker 2 p.m. TTh media law class-
I agree completely that it's unacceptable to report a story that is in fact untrue, especially if the outlet is so well known as NPR. If an electronic media outlet can't make a correction of something so untrue in a timely manner, then they shouldn't be able to use electronic media to broadcast.
Mark Wilson
t-th-2
As someone who works in media i also understand that mistakes happen. But this is too long for such well known and trusted news outlet. It is irresponsible, if your opinion of what happened is true, to have such a high-profile story written before the events took place. The outlet seems like they were trying to get a jump on the competition. But as sometimes happens, events changed at the last minute. NPR should have had someone on the scene, at least tweeting or doing something to keep people up to date. Or at the ABSOLUTE least should have had an editor watching coverage to make sure his story coincided with others. Tisk tisk NPR, tisk tisk.
I think the NPR mistake might be caused because of funding cuts and they might be short handed. The death penalty is too severe a penalty to impose in this age where prosecutors are more interested in winning than in the truth. The “Innocence Project” is showing through DNA evidence that more people are serving time for crimes that they did not commit than we would like to admit. The prison industry took a wrong turn when privatization of the prison system became a reality. Rehabilitation of criminals with a focus on eliminating recidivism was the original goal of our prison system, not profit. With the disproportionate prison population made up of poor blacks and Latinos, a racist legal system is hard to deny. The system now seems more geared towards assuring repeat offenders and a gang-oriented criminal class.
Post a Comment