,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
THREAD: In light of BuzzFeed hoax, I've been pondering how media should handle release of "bombshells" by other outlets. I don't think "not reporting" is a solution because it is news. But merely repeating charges w/ aside of "we haven't verified" is wrong. As is, discussing 1/
2/ at length the ramifications "if true," absent a balanced approach. It would seem (and I'm thinking out loud here & need to fully consider counter points, etc. so have at it), that the best approach would be to report as the story that an outlet has published X, then highlight
3/ reasons why skepticism is appropriate (unnamed sources, unseen documents, not sure if documents seen, history of misreporting, other evidence that makes the story unlikely, and whether other sources the reporting outlet has contact support/contradict). Obviously this isn't
4/ something done instantaneously, but within 1 hour of BuzzFeed story breaking, Twitter threads had exposed many problems with all of the above. Before reporting at length, other media should have those details ready. Then in discussing ramifications, need to discuss both-if
5/5 true and if false. And finally, AFTER a hoax is exposed, media needs to spend as much time discussing the exposed hoax as they did the supposed bombshell. Where am I wrong? What else should/shouldn't media do? END
