Online journalism: Trading speed for accuracy?

How does journalism change in a wired world where publication can be immediate, and global?

It's one of the fundamental questions we face in journalism. Does the speed and immediacy enabled by the Internet come at the price of accuracy? And, if so, is that necessarily bad?

In truth, the answer is yes - in the online world, with greater ease of publication and fewer filters between the content creator and the 'publish' button (compared to the traditional newspaper model), mistakes are more likely to make it onto the web than into your daily paper.

The less considered other half of that equation is that those mistakes are fixed more quickly - and permanently - online.

One of the great aspects of journalism in a wired world is the immediate feedback from the news consumer. Even if the online editor does miss something, readers are (eagerly) quick to point out errors, which can be immediately corrected without having to wait until the 'next day's edition.'

Furthermore, those corrections replace and eliminate the digital record of the error. One of the great frustration for anyone ever misquoted in a newspaper is that the correction usually runs in another part of the paper on another day, completely separated from the original erroneous story, which lives on in print in perpetuity.

The more provocative issue is, are there stories where the benefit of speed of coverage can make up for and even justify errors committed in haste? Are there other stories where caution and correctness must trump considerations of speed, even in a wired world? This is the question grappled with in an interesting New York Times article by their Public Editor.

Clark Hoyt makes a persuasive argument that small errors of fact in the continuous coverage of a developing 'spot news' story like the plane that crashed into the Hudson River are OK, because those facts get continuously updated and speed of coverage is important. He contrasts that with the Times' own failure by reporting too hastily insufficiently researched comments about Caroline Kennedy, where errors can 'stick' on a person's reputation despite later efforts to correct the record.

It's a bold but I believe legitimate distinction to draw between spot news stories with emerging details and these larger character/investigative stories. The reality is, in the wired world, news flows constantly to the audience. The audience is no longer willing to wait a day for the print newspaper model of multiple editors reviewing copy and then a single version of the truth being 'posted' . There is a level of sophistication on the part of online news consumers, who recognize the evolving nature of breaking news stories. In those situations, I believe they are willing to accept some errors during the incremental reporting process, provided those errors are corrected by new reporting. They are even willing (nay, WANTING) to be part of the 'conversation' about the news of the day, whether through blogs or story comments, are more than happy to quickly ferret out errors that in the previous era could have taken days to identify and correct.

Finally: A discussion of Journalism's future

The New York Times has authored a multi-pronged piece on the future of newspapers called "Battle Plan for Newspapers" that is worth reading.

For a topic that too often has been addressed from a backward-looking view, aka "How to SAVE Newspapers", the NYT piece is refreshingly forward-looking. Sure, it catalogues the litany of financial obstacles facing print. But then it moves forward.

In particular, the inclusion of multiple "essays" offering divergent scenarios for the Newspaper of the Future are provocative.

Anyone who claims to be certain about the future form of what has been The Newspaper should be distrusted, but the Times has done a real service by pushing the dialogue away from finger-pointing and 'preserving the existing order' and instead focusing on what newspapers might become.

TIME cover misses the mark

TIME magazine's latest cover story, "How to save your Newspaper", repeats in its headline the very thinking that has contributed to the demise of newspapers.

Many in print journalism continue to confuse content with distribution. In a multimedia world, we should all want to "save journalism", if in fact journalism is endangered and needs to be saved.

However, there's nothing inherently sensible about expending energy saving a distribution method that has been usurped by technology. It's the same thing as launching a "save typewriters" campaign in the wake of the advent of word processors and PCs.

Newspapers are in trouble for a number of reasons, almost all of which derive from the newspaper's distribution method: The cost of printing and the cost of delivery put newspapers at a competitive disadvantage compared to other media; the lack of immediacy of newspapers compared to internet, radio and TV has cost newspapers subscribers; and the superior ad value provided by internet players like Craigslist, compared to print ads, has cost newspapers revenue.

The focus, for TIME and for newspaper executives, should be How to Re-Invent Newspapers to adapt to the changes in the competitive landscape.