How journalism has changed from 30 years ago

David Wilson
David Wilson

On July 24, 1984, a gunman went on a shooting rampage in Hot Springs, killing five and wounding one. It made nationwide news.

I was there, at age 22, working in my first week as a reporter for The Sentinel-Record, the city's daily newspaper. After hearing details on the police scanner in the office, we dispatched a news team to the address where police were converging.

Amidst a chaotic scene of reporters, television cameras, and onlookers, I witnessed a SWAT team clean up the aftereffects of the shooting and then gleaned information from witnesses and law enforcement.

Later that evening I typed up a story for the next day's paper. I typed the story because we didn't yet have desktop computers in the newsroom. There was no Internet access, no email, no smartphones, no electronic tablets, no Facebook, no Twitter, no Skype.

In those days the journalists were all over a story of that magnitude, just as they are today. But as you can imagine, some things have changed both in news delivery and in news consumption.

When the Boston Marathon bombings took place in April of 2013 -- almost 30 years after the event in Hot Springs -- the coverage was instantaneous. And much more extensive.

The same can be said for the more recent June 12 shootings in an Orlando night club.

In such major news stories in the 21st century, details come to us via the Internet and from 24-hour television news coverage.

Professional journalists in 2016 are no longer the only avenue of information because technology enables any citizen to be a reporter, capturing photos and video, and posting observations online or through social media.

The established news providers, whether they are as large as CNN or Fox News, or as modest as the small-town newspaper, do not compete with what may be considered amateur journalism, but rather they embrace it, often incorporating smart phone videos or Skype broadcasts into their own reports. They also use Twitter and Facebook themselves.

That's the look of journalism today, a blending of both professional reporting and online interaction among community members.

The danger in having so many voices speaking at once is that there is greater likelihood of misunderstandings or of erroneous information getting out, but there is also the benefit of being able to consider multiple perspectives on any given event.

If the average person wants to enter into the arena of public discussion, it is healthy for democracy, but if he or she wishes to assume the role of reporter or broadcaster, responsible citizenship dictates that he get the facts straight.

This is not to be harsh towards those who want to participate. The truth is, the established media do not always get it right either.

It's hard to be error-free when everything moves so fast. In the world in which I broke into reporting, more than 30 years ago, the media had to go about 40 miles per hour and not make a mistake. Today, they have to go about 120 miles per hour, and still not make a mistake.

As we learn more and more about tragic events in the news, such as the murders in Orlando, we would be wise to not over-react to every piece of information that is released. We would also be wise not to start full-blown debates without having all the facts (even though that seems to be quite common on television news in the wake of a tragedy).

When a big story breaks there is a lot of tumultuous activity and consternation. It was that way back in 1984 in Hot Springs and it is that way today.

But today, with more media outlets, more voices in the discussion, and an ongoing cyberspace presence, there can be greater confusion.

If we as citizens don't take the time to properly process the information and filter through what is accurate and what is not, then we run the risk of getting caught up in the emotion of the moment.

When that happens -- when we are subject to the whims of our own emotions and fears rather than our rational thinking -- we resemble a panicking mob more than a free society.

To alleviate the pandemonium that occurs when tragedy strikes it is best for everyone (reporters, politicians and citizens alike) to think clearly and remain calm.

Only then are we prepared to be a part of a meaningful and constructive response to whatever takes place.

• • •

David Wilson, EdD, is a writer, consultant and presenter who grew up in Arkansas but worked 27 years in education in Missouri. He now lives in Springdale. You may email him at [email protected].

Editorial on 07/20/2016