Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Advertise | Subscribe to the paper | Today's Extras

Breaking News:

Subscribe

KOPEL: Post's bloggers beat Rocky's tweeters

Twitter's limitations a detriment to reporting

By Dave Kopel, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published September 20, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

Barack Obama and Sarah Palin both campaigned in Colorado on Monday. Which Denver daily provided better coverage?

The Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post both provided live online updates of the Palin and Obama speeches. The Post's were far superior.

The Rocky used Twitter, which allows only 140 characters per message; the Post used the more traditional weblog format, which has no limit on length. As a result, the Post supplied more than 1,600 words on live update information on the Palin rally, while the Rocky had fewer than 300.

So, for example, the Rocky said, "Palin is talking about her role as veep." The Post, meanwhile, reported, "Here's something new. Palin says she and John McCain have decided what she would focus on as vice president. 'My mission is going to be energy security and government reform. It's going to be helping families who have special needs, and I will push for innovative cures to diseases.' "

If you want the news as it happens, the Post beat the Rocky in reporting the one nationally significant fact from the Palin rally.

The Post's weblog format allowed the participation of an editor, whereas the Rocky's Twitter format does not.

The advantage of the Post's format was on display in the live coverage of the Obama rally in Grand Junction.

At 11:05 a.m., the Post's live report stated: "State Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, is the day's first speaker. She took an immediate shot at the McCain campaign for the senator's remarks last month that the Colorado River Compact should be renegotiated. 'Would you like to see the compact overturned? Sen. Obama would honor our original agreement.' "

By 11:07, a Post editor had provided nearly 200 words of background about Curry's remarks, detailing how McCain had told The Pueblo Chieftain that the compact "should be renegotiated" before retreating from that position a little while later.

The terse "tweeting" of the Rocky missed the Colorado Compact controversy completely, merely reporting, "Curry pulls out blue shirt that says she is a hockey mom."

Ten minutes after Obama took the stage, the Post was already reporting his direct quotes about the Lehman bankruptcy, whereas the Rocky had nothing about his content.

Monday's Truth Patrol in the Rocky contained a major error. Rocky staffers Laura Frank and Katie Kerwin McCrimmon claimed that Sarah Palin fumbled a question from ABC's Charlie Gibson last week when he asked her if she supported "the Bush doctrine" and she asked him, "In what respect?"

According to Truth Patrol, the Bush Doctrine "is the policy Bush created in 2002, justifying the invasion of Iraq. The doctrine entitles the U.S. to attack another country if our leaders believe that a foreign country is on the verge of attacking us."

Not really.

In the same day's paper, the Rocky editorial pages carried a syndicated column from The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer, the man who created the term "Bush doctrine." As Krauthammer explained, the Bush doctrine has been used by journalists to mean any one of four distinct policies: Pre- 9/11, it meant unilaterally withdrawing from certain treaties; shortly after 9/11, it meant treating any nation that aids terrorists as a hostile regime; then, before the Iraq war, the Bush doctrine meant pre-emptive war against potential threats. (Frank and McCrimmon picked this meaning.) The final meaning comes from Bush's second inaugural: spreading democracy across the globe.

Krauthammer pointed out that Palin sensibly requested clarification of an ambiguous question. As Krauthammer noted, Palin clearly didn't know what "the Bush doctrine" meant, but neither did Gibson. If Palin had not known about the different policies (e.g., pre-emption or democracy promotion), it would have been a major gaffe; but not knowing a label used by some journalists who keep changing their minds about what the label applies to is not really a "Rock Solid" fumble.

Krauthammer's column was first published in The Washington Post on Saturday morning, and the Washington Post on Saturday also ran a front-page news story detailing the often-changing meanings of "the Bush doctrine." The political Web sites on Saturday and Sunday had plenty of stories about Gibson's gaffe, so there was ample time for Frank and McCrimmon to have ordered a fix for their article before it went to the printer on Sunday night.

RockyTalk Live can't fact-check every online comment, but false or highly misleading comments shouldn't run in the print edition. On Monday, the Rocky printed a reader comment claiming that Palin has a 93 percent approval rating, while Obama's is only 45 percent. A few minutes' research showed that the 93 for Palin was within Alaska in May 2007; the only national 45 for Obama is from last February, when he was less well-known. The Palin 93 is so implausible on a national level that the comment should have been checked before print publication.

Dave Kopel is research director at the Independence Institute, an attorney and author of 10 books. He can be reached at kopeld@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • September 20, 2008

    7:51 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    woodwose writes:

    The Rocky's "Truth Patrol" has blown it so many times they've completely lost any credibility they ever had. Time to pull the plug on these guys.

  • September 20, 2008

    10:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Romulus writes:

    So you would rather believe Krauthammer than your own ears? Did Palin start discussing possible interpretations of the Bush doctrine when Charlie Gibson asked her what it meant to her? No, she started babbling like a kid who hasn't done her homework, clearly out of her depth. I'm looking forward to the Vice-presidential debate. It will be very entertaining to see Sarah desperately trying to fake it on the same stage with someone who actually knows something about foreign policy.

  • September 20, 2008

    1:02 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mediamum writes:

    What we've seen here is a failure to understand Twitter, which is a social media tool, not a broadcasting tool.
    The Rocky, and other mainstream media, could use Twitter productively as a way of interacting with its audience and answering detailed questions on news events in realtime - but it has instead used it for something that fits better with what it's used to.
    Congratulations to the Rocky for giving Twitter a shot. That was a little bit brave. But it would be better off using it as part of a conversation with its audience. That is what will set the Rocky apart.

  • September 20, 2008

    1:24 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Darwin writes:

    Glibson's (intended) ploy is typical of a journalist desperate for ratings and trying to get the "gotcha moment". It is now evident that even he didn't know the answer to the question. ABC used another ploy of the of distortion, edit the interview to give a bias to support your views. I read the interview transcripts and was quit surprised in how the perception of the interview was changed.

    I don't like McCain or Obama, but can't believe how biased the "major" networks have become and as an unaffiliated voter will keep that fact in mind when I vote. I have already voted against ABC, CBS, and NBC.

  • September 20, 2008

    8:06 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    AngelontheSidelines writes:

    Sarah Barracuda, meet Joey the Shark :P

    Hat tip to Bill Maher.

  • September 21, 2008

    12:33 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    John_II writes:

    When did reporting become "blogging"?

  • September 21, 2008

    6:33 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Cwillyrun1 writes:

    It's what most mainstream media want darwin. She's not Democrat and the media's against her. Typical media ploy also, build someone up and then tear them down.

    The article by Krauthammer isn't the first one I've read making a point about the several definitions of a "Bush Doctrine". Good journalists are supposed to basically know the answer to a question like this before they ask it, and Gibson blew chunks on that. He should stick with that morning show on ABC, it's light and fluffy and more suited to his capabilities. Where's Ted Koppel when we need him?

    Joey the Shark? More like Joey the Whale!

  • September 26, 2008

    9:29 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    You'll notice that the liberal mass media never reports gaffs or flubs by the left but shouts any perceived flaw from the right.

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.




(Forgotten your password?)




News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Sponsored links



Reprints