Dave Pell's blog this week on the speed of the "news cycle" and the rush to chime in with opinion before, as he puts it, "the crime tape is even up," struck a real chord with this retired weekly newspaper editor.
It was, from my vantage point, a blessing to have a weekly news cycle. It enabled us to ask a few more questions, delve a little deeper into why the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to deny a certain permit or why a local policeman retired suddenly. Of course, there were instances where it would have been nice to break a story or added embarrassment because an error was out there in reader-land for a full week before we could correct it, but the opportunity to be accurate and in-depth almost always outweighed speed, in my judgment.
Since the advent of instant news through the internet, however, it's not the news itself that makes as much difference as reaction to the news. This was the genesis of Pell's comment in his blog today. The shooting 10 days ago in Tucson at a Congress on the Corner event, which led to the death of six persons and the wounding of 13, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, seemed to be actually the smallest part of the news. The real news seemed to be what was said about the attack, including why the gunman might have pulled the trigger and who else might have contributed to his deadly decision.
Inflammatory political rhetoric, demonizing dialogue on TV "news" talk shows and talk radio, lack of gun control, the Arizona political climate, the healthcare bill and mental illness were all raised as possible contributing factors. Such a discussion about causes is, of course, vitally important, but it might be more fruitful if it was held after all the facts were accumulated, tested and digested.
By that time, however, something else will have happened to capture the short-term attention of the mainstream media, and the discussion will end. Where, after all, is the discussion about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the BP oil spill, the continuing economic malaise?
They are, in a dismissive sense, "last week's news." Time to gather and collect facts and explore what they mean is no longer a positive thing. In part that's driven by technology. We tweet because we can, and we'll sort out the truth later even if we get the facts wrong, as in NPR's premature declaration of Gifford's death. Too often, however, something else intervenes and we somehow never get to that sorting and correcting which is the basis of good discussions and ultimately good decisions. What's good instead is faster and faster... Being first seems powerful. What's not asked often enough is "why?".