Over the weekend, I had a lively exchange on Facebook about the role of news organizations in covering breaking news, triggered by house fires in Athens on Friday and Saturday. Many of the comments mourned the lack of immediate reporting on fires, accidents, and other unexpected happenings. Some suggested that the Independent could make some hay by stepping into that void.
We have done so in the past, with staff on site during a standoff with an armed man in the Beasley Mill Apartments and the Jackie O’s Public House fire. But it’s not something we do routinely.
For one thing, newspapers no longer have a corner on the market for information. When people see a fire or accident, they don’t call the newsroom; they pull out their phones and post it on social media. News organizations can better use scarce capacity by following up, as we did with the weekend’s fires.
Newsroom cultures also are changing. Journalism has a long and ignominious record of exploiting its labor force with low pay and the expectation that Breaking News would take precedence over one’s personal life. That environment has always been hard on reporters, but it’s become worse. If local news is going to survive and thrive, it has to care as much about its workers as it does the work itself. And part of that care is accepting that we can’t possibly cover everything, everywhere, all the time.
Ultimately, though, I have to question the purpose of an immediate response to tragedies and disasters. If there’s a threat to public safety — the fires are spreading, the wrecked trailer is leaking hazardous chemicals, the shooter is on the loose — then absolutely we’d be there. Absent that, the only purpose of immediate coverage is to get clicks by fulfilling the public’s prurient interest in others’ misfortune, and that’s not why any of us got into journalism.
