TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.click2houston.com/news/break ... e/32160380" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not much info. Wish it had been the bad guy.

I think your title is wrong. Nothing I saw said a cop shot a cop. It was a shootout between the guy being chased and the cop. Where did you get your info?

The title of the article says "Officer shot in the arm by another officer"

I overlooked the headline and read the article and watched the video. Neither day it was a cop that shot the cop. They both said the cop was shot by the guy he was chasing.


Edit: Then again, I may not have overlooked anything. Seems like they updated and changed the story.

Now they are changing the story. I don't know what to believe. Some fine journalistic reporting going on.

Here's the link to the original story I saw. Very different than the one they have up now. Some creative news reporting going on.

mojo84 wrote:Now they are changing the story. I don't know what to believe. Some fine journalistic reporting going on.

Here's the link to the original story I saw. Very different than the one they have up now. Some creative news reporting going on.

Note necessarily the news reporter's fault. First reports, including from the police (and other emergency officials) are often confused or wrong, because no one has had time to put together all the details in the right order. Not saying to bash cops or anyone else, it's just the way emergencies happen. Emergencies by definition are chaotic, so first reports are often a jumble.

ELB wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Now they are changing the story. I don't know what to believe. Some fine journalistic reporting going on.

Here's the link to the original story I saw. Very different than the one they have up now. Some creative news reporting going on.

Note necessarily the news reporter's fault. First reports, including from the police (and other emergency officials) are often confused or wrong, because no one has had time to put together all the details in the right order. Not saying to bash cops or anyone else, it's just the way emergencies happen. Emergencies by definition are chaotic, so first reports are often a jumble.

I understand. However, I think they should do a better job of making people aware it's an updated story. I also would rather get the news a little later and it be accurate. In my opinion, the media puts more emphasis on being first than being accurate. Apparently, I saw the story while it was being updated on the website as the story and video report did not match the headline. Why not just add the updated correct information instead of replacing the original I correct story? Then prod could follow it better as it develops.

What purpose does it serve for us to hear this type of story an hour earlier with inaccurate info?

mojo84 wrote:

ELB wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Now they are changing the story. I don't know what to believe. Some fine journalistic reporting going on.

Here's the link to the original story I saw. Very different than the one they have up now. Some creative news reporting going on.

Note necessarily the news reporter's fault. First reports, including from the police (and other emergency officials) are often confused or wrong, because no one has had time to put together all the details in the right order. Not saying to bash cops or anyone else, it's just the way emergencies happen. Emergencies by definition are chaotic, so first reports are often a jumble.

I understand. However, I think they should do a better job of making people aware it's an updated story. I also would rather get the news a little later and it be accurate. In my opinion, the media puts more emphasis on being first than being accurate. Apparently, I saw the story while it was being updated on the website as the story and video report did not match the headline. Why not just add the updated correct information instead of replacing the original I correct story? Then prod could follow it better as it develops.

What purpose does it serve for us to hear this type of story an hour earlier with inaccurate info?

I think the media stopped caring about accurate reporting a long time ago...

3 times title, caption and first sentence.

suthdj wrote:3 times title, caption and first sentence.

You are late to the discussion. That's the current article you are looking at. I contacted the reporter and the article was updated multiple times as additional information came in.

Apparently, when I first clicked the link, they had updated the headline to what you see now bit had not updated the article yet.

mojo84 wrote:

suthdj wrote:3 times title, caption and first sentence.

You are late to the discussion. That's the current article you are looking at. I contacted the reporter and the article was updated multiple times as additional information came in.

Apparently, when I first clicked the link, they had updated the headline to what you see now bit had not updated the article yet.

The big problem, in my point of view anyway, is that the news media rarely, if ever, acknowledge that they have made a "correction" in follow up articles or in the articles that got changed. This leads to multiple versions of a story being presented to the public, and a lot of the public only reads the first version they see and pays no attention to follow ups, which leads to further confusion as multiple people citing the same source quote different stories.

jimlongley wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

suthdj wrote:3 times title, caption and first sentence.

You are late to the discussion. That's the current article you are looking at. I contacted the reporter and the article was updated multiple times as additional information came in.

Apparently, when I first clicked the link, they had updated the headline to what you see now bit had not updated the article yet.

The big problem, in my point of view anyway, is that the news media rarely, if ever, acknowledge that they have made a "correction" in follow up articles or in the articles that got changed. This leads to multiple versions of a story being presented to the public, and a lot of the public only reads the first version they see and pays no attention to follow ups, which leads to further confusion as multiple people citing the same source quote different stories.

Exactly

TV news this morning said police officer shot fellow police officer in the arm during a chase. If that's not what happened. Damage is done.

philip964 wrote:TV news this morning said police officer shot fellow police officer in the arm during a chase. If that's not what happened. Damage is done.

Again, the article that is posted now and the story being reported now is correct. The article and video report has been updated multiple times since I made my original comment. The headline did not match the article or video when I first read and watched them.