Police not guilty in NY shooting: Is a slanted version better? (Part 1)

Three New York police detectives were found not guilty this morning, under the murder trial of Sean Bell. Bell, 23, died after the three officers, Marc Cooper, Michael Oliver and Gescard Isnora shot a collective round of 5o bullets, hours before his wedding.
The officers who were facing charges of manslaughter were acquitted according to reports by CNN and USA Today. However CNN, also offers video options to discuss what happens next. With leaders such as Al Sharpton involved the issue in this case which falls on social injustice similar to the Jena 6 situation, will undoubtedly receive coverage in the future. It is good judgment to follow-up on whether community outcry will become the next edition to this ongoing saga. Some are even relating this situation to the Rodney King police beating in the '90s, which sparked brutal riots in the Los Angeles area. Some are saying this situation could cause rioting or more violence from the African American community in New York.
Although many people love to associate Al Sharpton with racial injustices, many sources recorded in stories on the trial conclude that it is an issue of race. Many New Yorkers believe Bell and his friends who had just concluded a bachelor party were singled out by the officers, despite the jury's findings. Two of the three of the accused officers were black.
However media such as Black America Web who usually specialize in providing news coverage to and from an African American perspective, doesn't show any signs of bias.
Not that anyone is expecting them too, but the website's article takes a very emotionally graphic spin on the trial. It is emotionally charged and meant to evoke feeling but not very slanted. As opposed to CNN who plays it much safer. What do you think? Is BAW's coverage biased, by emotionally outraged association? Does BAW have the right to pose stories in a slant, and still remain credible?
However check out this Fox News broadcast, concerning the communities reaction before the verdict a while back before the trail who is actually biased?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLti9Yx7d6M

What went wrong at the LA Times?

The Los Angeles Times ran a front page apology this week for its report on the 1994 attack on rap superstar Tupac Shakur. It turns out the report was based on falsified documents. The story's credibility was first questioned by smokinggun.com, which noted that the purported FBI documents published by the Times appeared to be created on a typewriter - even though the FBI had not used typewriters for 30 years. Media Critic Howard Kurtz, of the Washington Post, explains how the story and apology unfolded. The Poynter Institute's Bob Steele outlines questions that reporters and editors should be asking about stories before publication to prevent similar errors and ethics issues from happening. And check out Jay Smooth's take on his hip hop video blog.

Go for grammar gold

Is grammar hard for you to grasp? Don't know the difference between lay and lie? Not sure when to use who or whom? You're not alone. Grammatical mistakes in news stories add to our industry's credibility problem. If a reader sees grammatical or spelling errors, he or she doubts the veracity of the entire article. The only way to improve your grammar is to practice. Check out the Grammar Girl's quick and dirty tips as a refresher. You can even sign up for her daily grammar tip podcasts. Or check out the Top 10 Grammar tips on this site. And finally, you can't beat William Strunk Jr.'s The Elements of Style for advice on language usage.

When is a quote not really a quote?

Several weeks ago, the Washington Post sports section carried two different versions of the same quote from an athlete. A columnist altered the quote to fix the athlete's grammar. The reporter, who taped the interview, quoted the athlete verbatim. Readers noticed the difference and wondered what was up. The newspaper's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, wrote a column noting the columnist had violated the paper's policy on direct quotations. Her second column explored the reaction from Post staffers and readers to the Post's quotation policy, which Howell explains says "those exact words should have been uttered in precisely that form." Staffers, who said there were gray areas, were divided. At least some readers were appalled that quotes had been changed. Bob Steele, an ethics scholar at the Poynter Institute, weighed in, too. He said quotes should accurately reflect the words used in an interview. Changing them increases the readers' distrust.

What do you think? Is it ever OK to change a direct quote? Why? An editor at the Post points out the columnist did not change the meaning of the athlete's words. He simply changed the grammar to save the athlete from potential embarrassment. The AP stylebook says quotation marks are used to surround "the exact words" of a speaker. What's your take?

The speech that didn't happen

On Wednesday, Aug. 29, the Detroit Free Press led Page 1A with a story about Chrysler's new CEO Bob Nardelli under a headline that said Nardelli leaps into action at Chrysler. The story said Nardelli addressed more than 300 senior executives at an all-day meeting Tuesday in Dearborn. The problem: Nardelli was sick on Tuesday and postponed his meeting with Chrysler execs. The Freep reported as fact that the speech had happened - but it didn't. On Thursday, the newspaper ran a correction, which it also attached to its online version of the story. The Free Press' correction didn't explain how the mistake happened or what safeguards the newspaper might take to ensure it wouldn't happen again. The credibility gaffe was reported in the popular Romenesko column on the Poynter Institute site.

What do you think? What should the reporter and his editors have done to prevent the mistake? Did it hurt the newspaper's credibility? Should the paper have handled the follow-up any differently? Have similar situations hurt the credibility of newspapers before?

Here is how Detroit's other daily handled the story the next day.