Media errors and the ‘nutty professor’: Riding the journalistic boundaries of the Sandy Hook shootings

Abstract

This study explores the relationship between social media and threats to journalism’s authority during coverage of the mass shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Two related threats are examined. One threat concerned widespread errors in early reporting of the shootings. A second threat came shortly after, in the aftermath of a communication professor’s blog claiming a conspiracy between media and government. Through textual analysis of news articles, columns, and blogs, the study considers the concepts of paradigm repair, boundary work, what-a-story news, and memory in the renegotiation of journalistic authority. Findings suggest that with increased reliance on social media for reporting, increased media errors threaten the boundaries of appropriate professional journalistic practice, which both mainstream and social media attempt to rebalance.

Social media and a case of mistaken identity: A newspaper’s response to journalistic error

“…In more recent times, a public apology has become a ‘common device for image restoration’ by ‘states, organizations and public figures’ (Kampf, 2009: 2257, 2258). However, as our findings in this study show, the New Zealand Herald’s apology combines image restoration with paradigm repair – the latter being an attempt to ‘assure society that professional practice remains viable although boundaries have temporarily been crossed’ (Berkowitz and Liu, 2016: 158). Such ‘boundary work’ –indicating what is or is not legitimate journalistic practice – is crucial for how the practice defines itself and maintains its credibility (Carlson, 2015; Revers, 2013), particularly in the digital age when an institution finds it necessary to defend itself by ‘drawing boundaries between who can be a part of the interpretive community and who cannot, between what is and what is not acceptable practice’ (Steiner et al, 2013: 706).…”

“…The ‘scramble’ by journalists in the digital age to get stories published online as quickly as possible, including photographs if obtainable, has not only increased the pressure on editorial staff to source material via social media but also provided opportunities for more errors to occur (Berkowitz and Liu, 2016; Riordan, 2014; Sienkiewicz, 2014; Silverman, 2015). Once mistakes that are published online come to the attention of the news organisation, they can be quickly removed or amended, and evidence of their existence may no longer be traceable.…”

“…Once mistakes that are published online come to the attention of the news organisation, they can be quickly removed or amended, and evidence of their existence may no longer be traceable. There is still a potential fallout for a news organisation in a loss of its credibility if erroneous information is noticed and publicly criticised by readers and other news organisations locally and around the world (Berkowitz and Liu, 2016; Fitts, 2014; Pew Research Center, 2011; Tenore, 2010). As a result, the ‘online apology’, as a fairly recent phenomenon, has emerged as an element of digital journalism which is worthy of investigation.…”

Homisit-Suisiti Anlamak

“…Yapılan çalışmalara göre, toplumda "ruhsal bir bozukluğu olan bireylere yönelik olumsuz tutumların yaygın olduğunu bilinmektedir (42). Son yıllarda, bireylerin güncel haber kaynağı olarak sosyal medyaya olan bağımlılığının artmasıyla, medyada böyle haberlerin sunuluş biçimi toplumun stres seviyesini kolaylıkla arttırabilmekte ve bu tür eylemleri daha sansasyonel bir hale getirebilmektedir (43).…”

The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Tweet: How #NotTheEnemy Twitter Discourse Defended the Journalistic Paradigm

“…More popular, however, are studies dedicated to paradigm repair resulting from a disruption arising within the journalistic ecosystem itself. Examples of this are extensive and include such disruptions as a journalist who outed himself as a socialist (Reese, 1990), paparazzi (Berkowitz, 1997; Bishop, 1999), the demise of two large American newspapers (Carlson, 2012), a White House reporter who made anti-Semitic comments (Hindman & Thomas, 2013), a false Rolling Stone story about campus rape (McCaffrey, 2017), decisions about whether or not to republish a cartoon of Mohammed in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack (Eko & Hellmueller, 2018), journalistic errors (Berkowitz & Liu, 2016), media scandals in Denmark (Blach-Ørsten, Møller Hartley, & Wittchen, 2018), and infamous New York Times fabricator Jayson Blair (Hindman, 2005).…”