{"id":485,"date":"2012-08-26T21:24:59","date_gmt":"2012-08-27T04:24:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/kagan.mactane.org\/blog\/?p=485"},"modified":"2012-08-26T21:24:59","modified_gmt":"2012-08-27T04:24:59","slug":"fast-is-the-enemy-of-good","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kagan.mactane.org\/blog\/2012\/08\/26\/fast-is-the-enemy-of-good\/","title":{"rendered":"&#8220;Fast&#8221; Is the Enemy of &#8220;Good&#8221;&nbsp;&mdash; And &#8220;Accurate&#8221;, and &#8220;Deep&#8221;, And&hellip;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Wanna see a <em>perfect<\/em> encapsulation of what&#8217;s wrong with journalism, and particularly online journalism, these days? Just take a look at <a href=\"http:\/\/techcrunch.com\/2012\/08\/24\/the-lyft-launch-that-coulda-been\/\">this piece by TechCrunch&#8217;s Ryan Lawler<\/a>. Pay particular attention to the parts where he&nbsp;says:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>I would be following someone else&#8217;s story half a day later, and no one wants to do that. I wrote back, explaining this: &#8220;&#8230;At this point, my inclination is not to cover, considering other reports were filed 12 hours&nbsp;ago.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I don&#8217;t normally like to call people out so publicly and harshly, but in this case, Mr. Lawler provides such a glaring, textbook example that leaving it unchallenged would be a disservice to&nbsp;society.<\/p>\n<p>This man purports to be a journalist, and yet he makes it clear he&#8217;d rather be first than anything else&nbsp;&mdash; it&#8217;s more important to him than accuracy, than depth, than balance, than giving a nuanced exploration of the issues or a clear and detailed rendition of the events that&nbsp;occurred. <\/p>\n<p>In fact, he doesn&#8217;t merely claim that breaking the story first is the most important thing. He makes it sound like it&#8217;s <strong>the only thing<\/strong>. If he can&#8217;t be first, or within an hour or two of the break, he&#8217;d just as soon <em>not run the story at all<\/em>: <q>I&#8217;ll be damned if I&#8217;m gonna follow someone&#8217;s story 12 hours after the&nbsp;fact.<\/q><\/p>\n<p>Lawler claims it&#8217;s not just him. He says, <q>Reporters are a prideful bunch. No one ever wants to follow someone else&#8217;s story.<\/q>, and points out that as of the time he wrote his article, <strong>nobody else had written about it, either<\/strong> (except for the one story that had broken the embargo). So I&#8217;d like to make it clear: <em>I&#8217;m not saying that Mr. Lawler is any <strong>worse<\/strong> than other journalists&nbsp;&mdash; only that he is being <strong>more honest and blatant<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>The real problem is modern journalism&#8217;s insistence on speed, and on &#8220;scoops&#8221;. This tendency is nothing new; the term itself <a href=\"http:\/\/www.etymonline.com\/index.php?term=scoop\">dates back to 1874<\/a>. But Internet news, and particularly blogs and Twitter, have kicked this tendency up to eleven. In the race to deliver the news faster and faster, we&#8217;ve sacrificed&#8230; pretty much everything else. And now we&#8217;ve hit the logical endpoint of that fallacy: If you can&#8217;t deliver the news first, don&#8217;t bother delivering it at&nbsp;all.<\/p>\n<p>Which is sad, pathetic, and wrong. It might surprise Mr. Lawler, but his lament for a &#8220;ruined&#8221; launch was <em>the first time<\/em> I&#8217;d heard of Lyft. If he&#8217;d actually <em>written about the service<\/em>, instead of about how sad it was that he couldn&#8217;t get out the first story about it, I&#8217;d have read it with interest. (As it is, he seems to have come to his senses a day or so later, and penned a perfectly serviceable <a href=\"http:\/\/techcrunch.com\/2012\/08\/25\/lyft-san-francisco-launch\/\">article talking about the imminent launch<\/a>. It&#8217;s much better than his earlier &#8220;startup launch ruined&#8221;&nbsp;piece.)<\/p>\n<p>In fact, giving up on competing on speed is <strong>the right thing to do<\/strong>. There are so many other things that are far more important in journalism. I&#8217;ve already named a few: Accuracy. Depth. Detail. Nuance and balance. They&#8217;re all mentioned way back in paragraph&nbsp;4.<\/p>\n<p>And it&#8217;s not like there isn&#8217;t any market for those things. Consider another major current story, the Apple-vs.-Samsung verdict. Lots of news outlets posted the US$1.05 billion award within seconds of its being handed down, but it took Pamela Jones and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.groklaw.net\/\">Groklaw<\/a> to <a href=\"http:\/\/www.groklaw.net\/article.php?story=2012082510525390\">really look at the situation and note that<\/a> the jury &#8220;goofed&#8221;, the &#8220;results were crazily contradictory&#8221;, and &#8220;something is very wrong with this picture&#8221;. And Jones&#8217; analysis hasn&#8217;t gone unnoticed; <a href=\"http:\/\/madisonian.net\/\">Madisonian<\/a> contributor and Villanova University School of Law Professor Michael Risch specifically calls out Groklaw at the end of <a href=\"http:\/\/madisonian.net\/2012\/08\/25\/brief-initial-thoughts-on-apple-v-samsung\/\">his own most recent post on the trial<\/a>, saluting them for &#8220;hav[ing] not only really detailed information, but really accurate information, and <em>actual source documents<\/em>. That combination is hard to&nbsp;find. (emphasis in original)&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>My question: Why is it so hard to find? <strong>Shouldn&#8217;t this be considered basic, core competency for journalists?<\/strong> Reporting facts? If Pamela Jones (whose major training seems to be paralegal, not journalism) can do it, then why can&#8217;t so many professional journalists?<\/p>\n<p>How about we start holding them to a higher&nbsp;standard?<\/p>\n<p>Journalists, consider: If all you bring to the table is speed, you&#8217;ve already been beaten to the punch by Twitter. Find a better market differentiator.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Wanna see a perfect encapsulation of what&#8217;s wrong with journalism, and particularly online journalism, these days? Just take a look at this piece by TechCrunch&#8217;s Ryan Lawler. Pay particular attention to the parts where he&nbsp;says: I would be following someone else&#8217;s story half a day later, and no one wants to do that. I wrote [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[125,60,126,64,23,30],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kagan.mactane.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/485"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kagan.mactane.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kagan.mactane.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kagan.mactane.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kagan.mactane.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=485"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/kagan.mactane.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/485\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":486,"href":"https:\/\/kagan.mactane.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/485\/revisions\/486"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kagan.mactane.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=485"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kagan.mactane.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=485"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kagan.mactane.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=485"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}