Reconsidering Rolling Stone's Reporting
According to the article, the Rolling Stone was just generally extremely sloppy in their reporting, fact-checking, editing, and pretty much in every aspect of the article. They failed to pursue every angle they could, as they could've saved themselves if they had bothered to report more thoroughly and interviewed everybody they could and attempted to get as much information as they possibly could. Though it makes sense that they would be more delicate with questioning the victim's truthfulness given the serious nature of the topic, it's ultimately more important that the article contains true information. Another big mistake they made in their retraction was that they blamed Jackie rather than taking responsibility and being accountable for their sloppy journalism. Journalists should learn from this experience how important it is to be extremely thorough and to pursue every lead possible in order to get the best and most accurate information possible. It's not worth it to be lazy at any point in the reporting process, as the reproductions are much worse than having to be a bit more persistent. Journalists should avoid pseudonyms, confront subjects with details, check derogatory information, and balance sensitivity to victims and the demands of verification. Though there is often a fine line between these guidelines, the priority of the journalist should always be to release the most thorough and accurate article possible. I agree with the article that the Rolling Stone should probably alter their procedures a bit, as they have a very high reputation to hold and it's most definitely not worth it to risk tarnishing it completely because their guidelines were too loose. Though I'd like to believe it was an isolated incident, the fact that pretty much every level of employees working on it made crucial mistakes shows that obviously something needs to change.
(im sorry this is so late, will not happen again <3)
According to the article, the Rolling Stone was just generally extremely sloppy in their reporting, fact-checking, editing, and pretty much in every aspect of the article. They failed to pursue every angle they could, as they could've saved themselves if they had bothered to report more thoroughly and interviewed everybody they could and attempted to get as much information as they possibly could. Though it makes sense that they would be more delicate with questioning the victim's truthfulness given the serious nature of the topic, it's ultimately more important that the article contains true information. Another big mistake they made in their retraction was that they blamed Jackie rather than taking responsibility and being accountable for their sloppy journalism. Journalists should learn from this experience how important it is to be extremely thorough and to pursue every lead possible in order to get the best and most accurate information possible. It's not worth it to be lazy at any point in the reporting process, as the reproductions are much worse than having to be a bit more persistent. Journalists should avoid pseudonyms, confront subjects with details, check derogatory information, and balance sensitivity to victims and the demands of verification. Though there is often a fine line between these guidelines, the priority of the journalist should always be to release the most thorough and accurate article possible. I agree with the article that the Rolling Stone should probably alter their procedures a bit, as they have a very high reputation to hold and it's most definitely not worth it to risk tarnishing it completely because their guidelines were too loose. Though I'd like to believe it was an isolated incident, the fact that pretty much every level of employees working on it made crucial mistakes shows that obviously something needs to change.
(im sorry this is so late, will not happen again <3)
92
ReplyDelete