GUEST COLUMNIST: Fast isn't always better than accurate

It sounds like such a great idea. At a time when the public has lost its faith in the mainstream media and is beginning to turn its attention to the wonders of the Internet, a guy named Matt Drudge comes along, rejecting all of the traditional journalistic presuppositions. He gives us, the public, free access to any and all news, rumors and allegations that come along the line. Almost immediately, Drudge comes under fire from the mainstream media, probably partially out of fear. The news cycle has been disrupted; and reporters, editors and anchors everywhere begin spewing venom at this roguish freelancer. Yet that is what scares me the most. The fact that people lend credibility to a man who publishes, for all to see, what Mugmon himself calls "information and rumors, truth and allegations." In essence, Drudge takes any story or accusation and, without thoroughly checking its credibility, places it on the Internet for all to see. Those who call this irresponsible journalism are exactly right. Drudge's type of work panders to any and all persons with a story to tell, a rumor to spread, an untruth to disseminate. The Drudge Report emphasizes speed over accuracy -- getting the story out first is more important than getting the story out right. This mentality is a large part of the problem with today's media. As CNN and Time reeled from their retraction from their infamous "Operation Tailwind" story alleging the use of nerve gas on American soldiers who defected, they probably wished that they had been more concerned with checking the facts of the story than with getting it out before their competitors did. According to a New York Times Magazine article from February, a local news broadcast on Channel 6 in Orlando, Fla., began one night with a story of a 400-lb. man sitting on a 22-month-old toddler. "The accusations are shocking, jarring," cried the anchors. Yet had they waited a day or so, they would have heard that the state prosecutor thought that the charges were too ridiculous to prosecute. Clearly that was irresponsible journalism. A family that had committed no crime was subject to humiliation and embarrassment in front of a large evening television audience, simply because a TV station was too anxious to find out the facts and emphasized speed over accuracy. The same holds true for the Drudge Report. Only here the stakes are greater. In this arena, the accusers and the victims may be national political figures and the is audience enormous. Even worse, many news organizations feel it necessary to report that, "According to the Drudge Report" -- thinking that they have done no wrong, just reported what someone else said. Yet that sort of action perpetuates rumors and allegations that may be horribly damaging to careers and even the fate of the nation. True, the mainstream media does tend to withhold news from the public for varying amounts of time. But unlike Drudge, they (usually) check facts and allegations before spreading them to the public. If the mainstream media behaved like the Drudge Report, the public would be flooded with rumors, allegations and accusations nonstop. Most people do not have the time or the resources to check the accuracy and legitimacy of these reports and would be unable to distinguish reliable sources from the latest Washington rumor. Verifying and explaining the truth behind allegations is (in theory) the job of the media. Their responsibility is to report the truth and enlighten the public as to the latest happenings in the country and around the world. And to do so in a manner that separates lies and half-truths from stories with legitimate facts behind them, unlike Drudge, who recklessly passes on anything that comes his way. Drudge fans seemed to be vilified when the Lewinsky-Clinton scandal, which Drudge had been reporting before every other news organization, turned out to be true. Yet this one atypical example, which incidentally incriminated Clinton before there was any actual evidence of wrongdoing, does in no way make Drudge any more legitimate. If Drudge insists on irresponsible journalism, people must learn not take him seriously. Respectable news organizations should not report the rumors and half-truths that appear on his Web site. For those who support and quote Drudge undermine their own credibility.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.