Skip to main content

Home/ Tam News Lab/ Getting it First vs. Getting it Right
Jonah Steinhart

Getting it First vs. Getting it Right - 98 views

started by Jonah Steinhart on 14 Feb 13
  • Max Bayer
    #2 Max Bayer on 14 Feb 13
     
    In the redwood article, they state the reasons for why team was being considered for discontinuation and they don't state how a key problem is the TYPE of students in team. It isnt just that a lot of people dont get in, it's that the people who do get in, are kids that are performing fine in normal schools. The tam news on the other hand includes this piece. One thing i believe the bark did well was insert the point that Ford was retiring in the middle of the story instead of saying it at the beginning like we did. The key issue was the subject as a whole not him retiring. Overall, I believe that we posted the article at the right time. We had solid, truthful, information, informative quotes, and an organized format. In circumstances where we don't have all of these characteristics then we should probably wait to post the article until it is ready.
  • liz archer
    #4 liz archer on 25 Feb 13
     
    I think that it's more valuable to get it right vs. having the article be published first. However, it would be ideal to be able to publish it first while also getting it right, but in the Team article case-that didn't happen for either newspaper. I thought that Tam's ability to be quick in publishing the article, with fewer details, wasn't as thourough as waiting a couple more days, like the Bark, to publish a longer version with the full story. I think that waiting longer is a better decision; you can get all the facts, quotes and essential pieces for the article so that it can be the best it can be.
  • Riley Kuffner
    #8 Riley Kuffner on 26 Feb 13
     
    Both pros and cons of timliness and accuracy must be weighed to analyze the situation. In regard to the potential elimination of the Team program, the Tam News got a story out the next day, briefly describing the situation and getting the opinions of some Team supporters. On the other hand, the Redwood Bark took three days to get a story out, but was clearer about the details of the situation and included quotes from the staff. This suggests that their information would have been accurate because they talked to actual Team program teachers and administration, who were fully briefed on the situation. It seems as if the Tam research was less extensive. In this case the potential benefits of getting the story out quickly were the fast spread of information to make the proposition an issue. Media coverage had the potential to push pro-Team activism. On the other hand, the consequence of getting the story wrong was the spread of misinformation, which could have significant repercussions. More time also allowed for more detailed information and analysis. In my opinion, the Bark did a better job by waiting a couple of days and putting out a more informational story than the Tam News did by getting it out the next day. The benefit of being two days quicker did not outweigh more information from Team Administration and staff.
  • Hannah Y
    #9 Hannah Y on 26 Feb 13
     
    The Tam News was successful in getting news out, but when I first read it I didn't learn anything, it didn't give me any insight on why it was closing. I was already following Team closing via the facebook group and crazed friends- so the information on the article was all information I was aware of. We got the story out to the general Tam community, which is admirable. But I wonder if it's more important to write a more matured piece about an issue or let the public know about big issues right off the bat?
    Personally, I wanted more answers and I feel the Redwood article offers that. But does that outweigh covering breaking news as it happens? The Tam News continued to follow up on the original article in a timely manner.
  • jasmine caputo
    #11 jasmine caputo on 19 Mar 13
     
    I agree with some of the previous comments. We made the right decision in this situation because we had the accurate information from less reliable sources, but in other situations, it wouldn't be the best idea to guess and just publish what we think is the truth because thats not our job. However, in our first report, we were careful to make sure to include only what we knew was true and then also talk about what might be the issue, but let the reader know that things were still changing.
  • Jordan B
    #13 Jordan B on 19 Mar 13
     
    I think in this case, the Tam news made the proper choice. Although it's always a gamble, this is an important occurrence in the community, especially for many former teamies. This was important that Tam students were aware of it, and the Tam news did their best to make sure they were getting the facts rather than just speculation. The benefits of making the community aware of this important issue.
  • Sarah Asch
    #15 Sarah Asch on 19 Mar 13
     
    I think that Tam made the right call because ultimately the articles have the same information. In general first is better than right because you don't want to stop being a reliable source--if that happens it doesn't matter when you come out with anything because nobody will trust your publication. However, in this case Tam had enough info for an article and we wrote it while redwood waited to publish the same information. If redwood had waited and then kept waiting until the story played out that would have been different. In this case, what we did makes more sense, the reason being that we didn't publish rumors about what was going to happen we just wrote what already had happened.
  • Sam Allen
    #16 Sam Allen on 19 Mar 13
     
    It seems like most of us are in agreement that in this scenario, the Tam News made the right decision. It may have just been luck that none of the information in our article was incorrect, but we had enough information from credible enough sources to go for it. However, I also thought that because they took it slow, the Bark's article was more in-depth and generally had a lot more sources and information than we did. So now, the question is, was it better to get it out first or should we have focused more on having a more in-depth article to read?
  • jake izola-henry
    #17 jake izola-henry on 19 Mar 13
     
    ^^^ dude.... so real, great stuff sam
  • Haley Fretes
    #18 Haley Fretes on 19 Mar 13
     
    I agree with many of the students above. I think that Tam News made the right choice posting it earlier in this case because this topic became a huge controversy within the community as soon as administration made the announcement of the potentential discontinuation. However, I acknowledge that being the first to publish a story might not always be right and could end up getting yourself into a sticky situation. I think our reporters did a good job getting the most accurate information they could get from sources and getting this information out in a timely manner, which in the case of this story was more appropriate because the topic became so big so fast. The Tam News article didn't publish anything that wasn't true, but they also didn't give themselves as much time to get in touch with better sources like the Redwood staff did. Yet I think that even without the sources that the Redwood article included, Tam's was just as strong because our article also made it apparent that things were not final and that things were still changing within the issue.
  • Ava Mathews
    #20 Ava Mathews on 19 Mar 13
     
    I think it is more important to get the facts right rather than publishing the article as fast as you can. If you publish misinformation because you rushed to print the article people won't consider you as reliable as other sources. I think it was a lucky chance we got all the facts right, and that we got an article as good as the Barks' written so quickly.
  • Madeleine Elias
    #22 Madeleine Elias on 22 Mar 13
     
    When comparing just the Bark article and the initial Tam article, I'd say that the Bark article is better in terms of details and of keeping informed on the subject as its process continued. But when I factor in the follow-up article that Tam included, I'd say that Tam did better. The first article came out quick, informing people more quickly about the subject; and then the follow-up article gave an update that provided more details and a more definite conclusion.
  • Anna Vandergriff
    #23 Anna Vandergriff on 24 Mar 13
     
    I think that the Bark's article had more relavant details, and you get the most important information at the beginning due to the fact that they waited to publish the article. However, we did not print anything that was false, they just had more details in their article. I think it was appropriate to write it early rather than making sure everything was perfect because this was a huge issue that many high school students were concerned with or at least aware of and it was important to get the information that we knew out there.
  • Holly Parkin
    #25 Holly Parkin on 25 Mar 13
     
    It's true, luck did have a big part in this particular situation. But for the most part, I think that the Tam News handled the situation very well. The job of a journalist is to inform, and the fact that we did research quickly and efficiently enough to get the article up fast deserves some credit. Since this is such a critical issue, there are a lot of rumors going around as it is, and by later editing the article and adding certain facts we may have left out, we made it clear that we knew what was happening with the story. Sometimes, luck is a factor, but for the most part, an article doesn't always have to be perfectly edited and refined when time is of the essence.
  • Emma Talkoff
    #26 Emma Talkoff on 29 Mar 13
     
    As someone who worked on editing the story and making the call to go ahead and publish it despite knowing that the situation was still changing, I think situations like this can be really tricky but I do think we made the right call. Following the initial discussion about TEAM's possible discontinuation/discussion about discussion about discontinuation, there were a lot of rumors and a lot of concern flying around. I think it was important that we attempted to address that immediately, especially in the print issue which went to press before we had the board meeting results. In situations where we can at least describe a conflict that affects students, like this one, I think we should, even if we don't have information on how that conflict is being resolved. It's part of our job as informers to the student body to get the latest information on this kind of situation to students, and I think in this case it was important to get that information out quickly because there was a lot of confusion about the situation. But we also definitely need to acknowledge the fact that the situation is subject to change and that we may not have all of the information.

To Top

Start a New Topic » « Back to the Tam News Lab group