Do you want to be fast or do you want to be right?

The internet has changed news and mass media in many ways. The most significant way is speed. No need to print anything anymore, just a click and it's out there. The rush to be the first has become the thing that matters the most in journalism. Being first means you could go viral, it gives credibility that cannot be bought.

It has also created a career field of vultures. Instead of relying on tried and true journalism techniques, like thorough, consistent source development, good news/reporter instincts and the benefit of wisdom and experience, now the theory is to hover over anything that might bleed, I mean lead.

As soon as a whiff of a detail is in the air, 50 journalists are drafting it for a story set to go out in minutes. Twitter makes the process even faster since it only has to be a sentence.

Fact checking is for later, verifications and red teams are for later if at all. If something is wrong, editing is electronic and can be done at any time.

Go.

Run with it.

Put it out there.

The reward for the (even slim) chance that you'll be the first and get it right is worth the risk of getting it wrong 100 times.

Americans don't punish news outlets for being inaccurate. They just reward who is first, and therefore in effect punish whoever is slow, even if they are right.

Instant gratification.

We are a nation that becomes bored quickly, and everything has become replaceable. Which means the value of everything we are and have is dropping.

When there are 2000 stories on the same thing, the only one that is sure to set out is the first one. It is the last leg journalists have to stand on.

Newton wasn't the only recent major news event to see inaccuracy in reporting in order to be fast.

One of the greatest (or perhaps worst) speed over accuracy moments in recent memory was with the Boston Bomber. CNN incorrectly identified the bomber. The innocent person they identified almost died as a result.

http://gawker.com/5994966/jon-stewarts-masterful-takedown-of-cnns-sloppy-boston-bombing-coverage-almost-makes-all-the-fucking-wrong-reporting-worth-it

That is no longer journalism, that is no longer in the realm of what is ok.

Journalism exists, in my most humble opinion to fulfill the public's need/right to know.

That public need does not come before an innocent person's life.

It's not a secret that news doesn't pay so well anymore and usually those in that job field work harder for less money than in years past.

The lack of revenue in profits does not equate loss of power and influence.

Mass media helps to shape public opinion.

It is the duty of those in positions of power to wield is justly.

Today's journalist's largely aren't doing that. They are just trying to be the next viral story, the page with the most likes today.

Take the Treyvon Martin case. It was largely touted as a black vs white case, even though neither of he men were white. I have no doubt that began as a incorrect and sensationalized detail from early reports in the news.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/13/Media-Zimmerman-Coverage-Rap-Sheet

The American people allow this to happen, and in fact encourage it. They do so by not fact checking, by not carefully choosing which news source to consume, to trust.

Instead their allegiance is always to the first instead of the correct.

Until the American people change, mass media likely will not change either.