UPDATED: Attacker at Ohio State University killed

Very very little upside.

Last time I covered one, I did a Facebook live from just outside the scene. This was at a high school and while I didn't have a lot of facts, I was able to show the scene and talk to a couple of people who were inside. The presence calmed hundreds of parents down as rumors flew all over social media. Some said 10 died but it was a kid with a gun who walked in, waved the gun around the cafeteria and shot and killed only himself.

Four years ago, we had an Amber Alert. The cops surrounded one house and our reporter on the scene told me that they had the suspect surrounded. I reported "appears the Amber Alert is starting to wind down", only on Facebook.

Nope.

Suspect was never there. I was wrong.

The sheriff, police chief and the state director of public safety all called or emailed me with 10 minutes telling me I was wrong and how I could be so irresponsible. We won multiple Emmys for our coverage that day and the whole time I was anchoring, I was worried that I would get fired the next day.

So... no, barely any upside.

 

YF1: Don't believe rumors.
YF2: Rumor is news!

 

I can't say this enough: I am so glad I got out of the journalism game before social media became a thing.

 

Me, too. I sucked at the news-gathering part when I had several hours. Can only imagine how bad I'd be if I had only a few minutes.

 

One dead in O-H-I-O.

 

Sadly, it's destroying a lot more than journalism ...

 

Social media does have some very good uses though. When you start getting 15 or 20,000 followers and actually engage on posts that aren't just about showing your new shoes or links to your stories, that becomes your calling card to getting people to talk or, even better, send you their video from inside the crime scene.

Far too many reporters who don't have the years or contacts in a certain market can only be loud and constant in their posts.

I don't post as often but I insist that each post has value and moves the situation ahead.

 

Go for it.

Juries should convict based on eyewitness evidence too, right?

 

No, they should convict based on people who didn't claim to see anything...

 

Much of it does suck and shouldn't be defended. But this is a sports journalists board, so there's necessarily a different take on things.

 

Yes, and as recently as yesterday I posted about how I wish he would stop with the Twitter obsession. Next question, fp.

 

It's all part of the stochastic conspiracy. There are YFs on virtually every fucking message board on the internet whose entire schtick essentially is to trash the media nonstop. When all the media becomes unbelievable, there's no way and really no reason to sort out the factually unbelievable shit a nonstop liar like Dumpf pumps out.