In The End Coverage of YouTube HQ Shooting Was Better Than Avearge; Bay Area TV News Mostly Gets It Right Under Difficult Circumstances; 415 Media Analysis

I'M GOING TO SURPRISE MANY OF YOU ...I'm going to DEFEND, for the most part, the overall coverage of the You Tube HQ building Shooting in San Bruno on Tuesday.

Praise even.

Analysis.

Like many of you, I watched most of the coverage --skipped from local station to station and cable network coverage too.

Yes, there were embarrassing moments --too many reporters giving out false information and reporting mere speculation--based on no facts --of what was actually taking place and what ultimately transpired. Sure, the "situation was 'fluid'--we hear that word a lot--"fluid"--but rampant on-the-run theories and hunches shouldn't be tolerated but sadly are. It's the state of modern day breaking news stories and shootings like this have become an almost daily/monthly occurrence.

But let's be fair here. Often times, when these incidents take place, yes, IT IS FLUID. When the Florida High School massacre took place, we initially thought it wasn't as devastating as it turned out to be; overhead copters showed students outside with their classmates appearing mostly orderly and subdued but nothing that would indicate the chaos that took place inside the school. We listened to reporters talk to students and parents and knew it was tense and that there would be casualties but we had no idea of the scope of events and horror that occurred. We viewed images of a suspect being taken into custody but had no idea even if he was an actual suspect; was it just someone else? Was it only he if at all? Did the shooter act alone; how many dead; was it over; what is going on? We started to get a sense of the awfulness after hours of accounts from those reporters on the scene and authorities talking to media members.

Welcome to modern-day media coverage. Yes, again, too many assumptions and summations without actual confirmation or correct information but it's a damned-if-you-do--damned if you don't world out there in 21st Century TV/Cable/Internet domain only further saturated with the advent of social media like Twitter. Everyone wants to be first but as Cronkite said, "Sure, get it first, but get it right, first."

The shooting in San Bruno was no different; at first it looked real bad based on the sight of many people running out of a large office building complex with their hands up; multiple images of hundreds of cops, some with shotguns being displayed and ready for engagement. We heard about some victims running into a fast food place with visible gunshot wounds and the usual eyewitness accounts of a shooter. But who and why? There was a "report" by some of a "female" shooter but several local stations interviewed a man saying emphatically it was a "man."

Dion Lim of KGO-TV had a guy who witnessed the incident, insisted it was a man but never followed up by asking the guy most of the authorities said it was indeed a female. Soon after, Lim was off the KGO coverage. Coincidence? Perhaps, you be the judge.

We then began hearing off-the-cuff "reports" that the shooting may have been a domestic quarrel and perhaps one of the victims was the shooter's boyfriend. Lots and lots of times without any basis of fact and even after the sheriff said there was no information to support such theory. Thankfully, it was finally quashed. Finally, real news and ultimately, as time marched on we began to hear of some unhinged woman who hated YouTube and was on an apparent revenge rant. We began getting factual information that the woman's parents had called police (or maybe not) and reported her missing and suffering from emotional trauma --we would know, again, factually that the police had seen her sleeping in her car only hours earlier before the rampage--how so? Someone asked the cops. That's always a good tactic.

Now apparently we know the story or at least more than we knew 24 hours ago but when you're dealing with this type of news event lots of adrenaline is involved; good and bad; not only the perpetrators but some media members too and that's not necessarily a bad thing; we're all human and the instinct is to want to get out as much info as possible even if it might be sketchy and false. Sure, in a perfect world we would like to be fed the truth and not have so much faulty reporting but the story dictates the manner in which it comes out. And most decent reporters try to get it right and work very hard under the most difficult circumstances. It's tough work.

There is no perfect formula to cover these tragedies and God knows we have watched and looked as these with almost regularity. I'm surprised nobody has written a handbook on the matter its become such a tragic staple of modern-day America. Hold off the anti-gun control e-mail because that's not my MO here.

As news consumers we are (and ratings and cable/Internet numbers say we are with authority) the demand and expectation of immediate, sometimes 24/7 coverage is immense. And this is a competitive business with jobs on the line and viewers to be fed the news they want and crave, even if it sometimes isn't any news at all.

San Bruno was the latest and unfortunately won't be the last.

Bay Area TV News did a pretty good job covering the San Bruno/You Tube tragedy. Under the circumstances better than average and that's OK in my book.

*ATTENTION: READERS of 415 MEDIA: I NEED YOUR HELP.
415 MEDIA is the Bay Area's only independent media site and relies solely on donations, subscriptions, and contributions. PLEASE help keep this blog sustainable by making a contribution or becoming a PAID SUBSCRIBER ($25 one year/$30: two years);  It's fast and easy:

Simply go to the Pay Pal "Donate" icon on the right side of the blog and click on it. It takes but a minute and it's safe, secure and completely confidential. I will personally e-mail and/or call you thanking you for your support.