This happens far too often. Journalists make assumptions and they ought not do it.
It happened this week. On Sunday morning London Police issued a suspect description after they were told that someone tried to lure a 7-year-old boy into a vehicle with promises of candy, money and even a claim that he was a friend of the child’s parents. The story was covered by every news organization in the city that wasn’t on automation for the weekend.
On Sunday evening Police issued another news release saying they determined the luring incident “did not take place.” One might think the child was looking for attention or some such thing but the fact was, Police didn’t say how they knew the story wasn’t true, just that it wasn’t. Weekend media relations officers with the London Police force aren’t usually very talkative. So I was surprised to read this headline in the local daily on Monday morning “Attempted Abduction Story Was Made Up”. I was fascinated. I couldn’t wait to read the interview they did with Police to find this out. But it turned out they hadn’t talked to Police. They just made an assumption and that became the headline. When the rest of the story did come out Police said it was a “misinterpretation” that led them to not take any chances and warn parents about the potential threat. When they realized the error, they called off the search. At no time was the child accused of lying.
In our business we just can’t draw conclusions of our own and make them news. It’s wrong even in cases when that suspected conclusion later turns out to be right. Facts and the relentless pursuit of them are all that separate journalists from random Twitter users. We’ve got to protect that difference as well as we can.
Sadly, in a society which demands instant everything, facts and accuracy in reporting news in all to many cases is an irrelevancy as long as you’re first. I’m reminded of the old adage, “just do it, we can always apologize later,” but by then everyone will have moved on to the next thing and we won’t have to.