The Media is Human and Therefore Fallible...Just Like You

Commentary

By Alicia Cruz
Editor-in-Chief
Theblackurbantimes

With the publication of an interview with Sgt. Mark Todd, the actual cop who gunned down Major Hassan at Fort Hood, the New York Times underlined what actually happened during the tragedy. They, like many other media outlets, caught an inaccurate detail and fixed it as soon as it came to their attention. Many readers are angry and accusing media outlets of intentionally crediting officer Munley with the "glory" for every reason from "because she was White" to "they just love reporting crap just to cause confusion."


I realize many people are angered by the inaccurate reports surrounding the incident. Everything from Major Hassan not being dead (as initially reported) to the number of shooters to who actually took Hassan down was hazy for several days.

I'm no police officer, gunsmith or FBI agent, but my first thought after hearing the number of wounded/killed was, "Yeah, they (the shooters) had a lot of fire power." Then, as the evening wore on, the number of shooters dwindled from three to...one.

I was irritated, hey, I'm human too, especially since I had laid out the breaking news story saying the shooter had been killed by police. Ask any editorial assistant or reporter how nerve wrecking it is to realize a headline is wrong (especially 5 minutes before or 20 minutes after deadline) or the facts within your piece are totally botched.

I compare it to a migraine because that's exactly what you'll have once your editor is done chewing your rear-end. Thankfully, I have a really understanding CEO/esenior editor. I couldn't be too irritated. After all, mistakes happen.

A few days later, I received a message from a source in Texas that said there were witnesses from the scene of the massacre tweeting that Major Hassan had re-loaded after officer Kimberly Munley went down. I was taken back because, after all, the news reports were saying something completely different as were the family members of officer Munley and a military official.

According to eyewitnesses, many of them yelled at the, then, unnamed second cop to shoot Hassan--which he did, and then went up and kicked his gun away. Why hadn't any of this come out before it did, you ask?

Because we, the media, are only human. When an incident like the Fort Hood massacre occurs, we receive a tip, we attempt to confirm it either from the newsroom or en route to the scene.

We don't sit at our desks and create stories, fill in the blanks and then report what we want. No, we go off of the facts as they are initially reported to us by an authorized party. If something smells suspect, either the reporter assigned to the story or an editorial assistant will fact-check and piece the story together just to ensure we're reporting facts.


In this case, we were given inaccurate information from the start for several hours and not out of malice, but out of pure confusion. No one is ever prepared for such an event like Fort Hood...especially on American soil...and on top of that, aboard a military installation. Yes, for days, the media did not question the "official" report the Army handed us portraying Munley as the shooter who took the crazed gunman down, but we did so because we had no reason to. It was not until eyewitnesses from the scene came forward and contradicted Munley and the military account of what happened that we, the media, began questioning and later changing what we were reporting. On 7 November, the New York Times and other publications plastered Munley on their front page declaring her as the civilian officer who took the lone gunman down. The New York Times' headline read: "She ran to gunfire, and ended it."

They reported what facts they had. They had no reason, at that time, to believe otherwise. The reporters at the New York Times are all seasoned and professional. They are just as aware of their obligation to report facts and their oath to maintain journalistic ethics as the rest of us, but every once-in-awhile, something will get by.

This doesn't make us stupid, malicious or trifling. It makes us human. I'm sure you have a job that you're great at, but once-in-awhile, you err and something gets by you. That doesn't give anyone a right to berate you for you are human and therefore, fallible.

The members of the media are just as human. Yes, just like we have rouge police officers, negligent doctors, rude customer service people and new jack repairmen...we have inexperienced reporters, but I can assure that their intent is never to intentionally or maliciously deceive the public or report bad facts.

What would we stand to gain by reporting something we know is bound to come back and haunt us? Especially something like the Fort Hood incident? There is no promotion or long term glory awaiting a reporter who intentionally misleads their readers. It is unethical professional suicide, period. Unless you plan to move to Russia to report the news you wont dare go there because, I assure you, you're unlikely to work in media in the U.S after that.

Once an Associated Press interview with Sgt. Todd cleared up inconsistencies about Munley's actual role, other media outlets began reporting the real deal. The New York Times, being the organization they are, recognized the error, corrected it and made sure that Todd received credit for being the shooter that actually took Major Hassan down as did other newspapers.

Keep in mind that this massacre took place inside of a building that is very similar to what the Marines call the Joint Reception Center. It's like a central operation center for incoming personnel and personnel either transferring or sorting out other military affairs.

In other words, it's a building where lots of Marines -- in this case, Soldiers -- were congregating. Enough to have given a shooter a real hard time. Soldiers were in shock and caught way off guard considering they were home...on American soil...home... aboard their military base and in a seemingly safe area.

No one reacted, initially, as they likely wanted to. We're human and that's what we do in extremely stressful and traumatic situations. That's not being a punk, a coward or anything else negative. It's being human. Try being in a room where shots are being fired and people are dropping like flies...see how rational you will react.

Over 17 years ago, I was robbed at knife-point in the South Bronx with a toddler in my arms as I waited for a taxi. I didn't think to utilize those pressure point self defense techniques my Marine ex-husband had taught me so many times...I didn't go off and jump bad (as I pictured I would do if ever in such a situtation)...I didn't drop kick him in his jingle bells like my brothers taught me to do...no, I shook like a leaf, begged for our lives, gave up my purse and ran like a runaway slave the moment I came to my senses.

I cried like a baby and was in shock for months. No, this wasn't a cowardly reaction it was a human one. When I inaccurately described the robber during my first police interview, it wasn't out of malice, it was out of fear and shock. Once I was able to calm down and think clearer, I went back and picked him out of a line up.

Remember that the media is ran by human beings...we can only report to you what we are told and we try, at your request, to get that news out as expeditiously as possible. We're going to make mistakes so bear with us. Our goal...our job is to inform you as best as we are informed. Our mistakes are not made from a malicious standpoint, but a human one.