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.