In memoriam: Quality reporting

Earlier this evening, CBS Sports reported that former Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno had died at the age of 85. Reports during the afternoon had indicated that Paterno was in serious condition and that family was being called to his bedside to say their final goodbyes.

The only problem with CBS Sports' report was that, you know, Paterno wasn't actually dead.

The carelessness with which this situation was handled is evidence of a more startling trend, particularly on Twitter. As a journalism student, I felt obligated to write down how I feel about this mess.

Much of journalism in the age of social media has become about getting that big "scoop" before anybody else. Online articles and posts are time-stamped, making it easier to prove that you or your network was on the story before any of your competitors. As a journalist, breaking a big story is one of the biggest thrills you can have. It's an adrenaline rush that only those in the field are able to fully understand and appreciate. But just because you can punch 140 characters into a box and press "send" doesn't mean that the actual act of reporting should go by the wayside.

Credibility is all a journalist has to work with. They all begin with a clean slate, but how they decide to go about their job can either build up that credibility or destroy it entirely. And credibility isn't something you find at a garage sale. Some reporters spend their entire lives working to gain enough credibility for people to believe what they say, even if it's only one sentence at a time.

CBS Sports' report of Paterno's death, which apparently originated from the blog Onward State, looks awful in retrospect, particularly because of the sensitivity of dealing with life and death. Literally. But why can't whatever lesson is taken away from this mistake apply to all aspects of journalism through social media?

Just because you can send out the online journalism's version of a retraction, as seen below, doesn't mean that anyone should feel sorry for you or even make them give you a second chance.

To OS followers: Our 8:45 pm tweet about Joe Paterno's death appears to be inaccurate, according to @JayPaterno, who says he's alive. (1/2)
— Onward State (@OnwardState) January 22, 2012

The sad fact is that people, whether journalists or the public, can't handle waiting for information anymore. Relaying or consuming information has become as more about speed than accuracy. We've become a society that has become obsessed with the phenomenon of writing "FIRST!" in the comments section.

It's an easy trap to fall in to. Twitter makes getting information or relaying it easier than ever before. Hell, in some cases, it has even been used to save lives. Twitter in itself is not a bad thing. And there are plenty of reporters and regular people who are able to use Twitter as a viable means for communicating. This is not a condemnation of those people. The issue is that journalism, perhaps more than any other profession, lives and dies by generalizations. If one reporter or news outlet is bad, they're all bad. And if we as journalists start focusing on the speed with which we're able to "report" something, and not on the art of reporting itself, bad things are in store.

My roommate made a comment just the other day that shows a good example of some people's general attitude toward reporters. He said he had been interviewed earlier in the night and remarked "they probably will get the quote wrong anyways. They didn't even say who they were writing for in the first place." As someone who always has and always will have a passion for journalism, comments like those make me sick. Some view journalism as being on life support, and it seems like journalists themselves are the ones who are ripping the power cord from the wall.

Credibility is all that journalists have left. And in today's day and age, it only takes 140 characters to completely destroy it.