Following the discovery that Dylan Davies, the security contractor who provided an account of the attack on Benghazi last year to CBS, had given contradicting statements to his security firm and the FBI, CBS is set to broadcast an on-air correction on Sunday. Davies had claimed that he went to the Benghazi mission against orders from his superiors, and had even disabled an attacker at the mission. Davies' account of the Benghazi attack as conveyed to CBS was recently published in a book, The Embassy House, by a company owned by CBS. With this revelation, the publisher halted publication and recommended that bookstores remove the book from shelves as well. Additionally, Lara Logan, the correspondent who had given the report, issued an apology on CBS This Morning (the video above).
This is not the first time CBS has had to retract a 60 Minutes report; in 2004, it had apologized for questioning George W. Bush's service in the National Guard, the mistake resulting in several layoffs. I found a paragraph in an article on TIME about this issue interestingly similar to what we have been learning in class about the media and journalism:
"Whatever went on in this specific report, CBS’s wagons-circling response to reasonable criticisms was an example of an unfortunately familiar pattern in journalistic (and other screw-ups). Once someone stakes out a tough or controversial position, there’s a buy-in: from that point on, they’re conditioned to look for reasons to support a position they’re already invested in.
The fact that partisan groups are advancing a critique becomes reason to overlook the objective reasons for the critique. The fact that you’ve put in time and reporting resources–and don’t doubt that Logan and company worked as doggedly as they say they did–becomes reason to dismiss a source’s contradictory testimony. The story becomes the reason to defend the story (as do the consequences of admitting fault)."
3 comments:
It’s another example of media sensationalism. The news media is competing in a race to the bottom – to get out all the information they have even if they haven’t confirmed or vetted their sources. Frankly, I don’t see a solution to this problem (at least not in the short-term). Our media culture is one of nonstop news and information saturation; it’s a competition to get the news out fastest, and speculation creates buzz and controversy.
It reminds me of the huge controversy last year surrounding the Boston bombing, when media outlets were quick to speculate on the identities of the bombers. Reddit in particular became pretty charged up and falsely identified suspects. This New York Post (tabloid) article wrongly accused two men because they had been photographed with bags at the marathon. Yea….
http://nypost.com/2013/04/18/authorities-circulate-photos-of-two-men-spotted-carrying-bags-near-site-of-boston-bombings/
Here's another link to an LA Times op-ed that was published soon afterwards.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/18/local/la-me-ln-boston-bombing-bad-journalism-fuels-terrorism-hysteria-20130418
But yes, this kind of reporting feeds this culture of bad journalism. And it’s a shame that I don’t find it surprising.
The part of this story that really takes the cake is that Davies' inaccurate report was published in a book. I find it funny/sad that the poor author had to have his books removed from the shelves.
This post does tie in interestingly to our latest class discussions pertaining to the role of the media. I agree with Brandon in his point that the media is currently more concerned with "selling" their news than they are with the true content or relevance of their news stories. Sometimes I think that it's funny the way many media outlets parallel pageantries in terms of competition and showing off, but then I remember that people look to these news sources as just that, sources of factual news, and I become a little sad. However, I can't imagine an end to this sensationalist format of delivering news, so until then, I guess people just have to take anything some news stations say with a heaping grain of salt.
The Boston bombing Brandon presents is another sad example of the mess of misinformation that has resulted from attempts to be the fastest in presenting news.
From what I've read, it seems that CBS decided to go with the story despite knowing that Davies' account was potentially questionable, as Davies alleged that he gave the same account to the FBI and there weren't other accessible witnesses to testify to the events and confirm Davies' account. In doing so, though, CBS compelled itself to affirm Davies' testimony until overwhelming evidence finally proved against him. There seems to be a fine line between aiming to be a reputable news source in reporting news as quickly and accurately as possible, and aiming to potentially gain more readers or recognition in bypassing accuracy to report news only as quickly as possible.
Post a Comment