The Seattle Times cherry picked the AP wire for coverage.
Yes, I wrote about it too. With a TBD blog post, I'll make a bet that 14 out of 18 members of #loweclass focus their blogs on the Boston bombing that has captured the nation's attention this week. It isn't surprising that it is such a large story. It is the first successful terrorist attack on American soil that took the lives of civilians since 9/11. Every major news agency in the world has taken an extra focus this week on covering Boston.
Naturally I decided to jump on over to The Seattle Times to see how they were handling coverage. If you are a common reader of my blog, which you likely aren't, it is at this point that you recognize that I am going to say "The Times made a good call by going with the wire coverage because of market trends and smart business." If you were to make said prediction you would be half right. I am going to tell you to that they were smart in grabbing the wire stories, but not because of market trends.
The reason using wire coverage helped them is that it gave them a kind of "self-service" protective blanket. The news agency that broke the most big news first was CNN, a fact that was reflected in their ratings. However, being first comes with a steep price. CNN has been nationally panned for their awful coverage throughout the week. Many journalism reviews and websites have targeted CNN this week as the worst supplier of coverage on the terrorist attack.
It isn't just the dropping of the metaphorical ball this week that has CNN in trouble. This strange and poorly designed website offers a horrifyingly accurate summary of CNN's coverage in this decade. Their broadcasts lack substance and their anchors focus on the wrong issues.
The Seattle Time won't be the national source here, so why should they report the news online using CNN as a source? Because there is a very real possibility that the cable news station could be wrong, and leave The Times in an awkward position regarding misinformation that it reported. By waiting on the AP stories to come across the wire, they increased the likelihood that their information is as accurate as possible.
Naturally I decided to jump on over to The Seattle Times to see how they were handling coverage. If you are a common reader of my blog, which you likely aren't, it is at this point that you recognize that I am going to say "The Times made a good call by going with the wire coverage because of market trends and smart business." If you were to make said prediction you would be half right. I am going to tell you to that they were smart in grabbing the wire stories, but not because of market trends.
The reason using wire coverage helped them is that it gave them a kind of "self-service" protective blanket. The news agency that broke the most big news first was CNN, a fact that was reflected in their ratings. However, being first comes with a steep price. CNN has been nationally panned for their awful coverage throughout the week. Many journalism reviews and websites have targeted CNN this week as the worst supplier of coverage on the terrorist attack.
It isn't just the dropping of the metaphorical ball this week that has CNN in trouble. This strange and poorly designed website offers a horrifyingly accurate summary of CNN's coverage in this decade. Their broadcasts lack substance and their anchors focus on the wrong issues.
The Seattle Time won't be the national source here, so why should they report the news online using CNN as a source? Because there is a very real possibility that the cable news station could be wrong, and leave The Times in an awkward position regarding misinformation that it reported. By waiting on the AP stories to come across the wire, they increased the likelihood that their information is as accurate as possible.
RSS Feed