A very interesting take on the QF32 incident by Stephen Forshaw
Login | Facebook
He makes a very good point with the following:
This begs the question; did Qantas tell CNBC television that the plane crashed, or did they say that the plane involved in an incident near Singapore was an Airbus A380? Did CNBC report that the plane crashed? Or did Reuters add that? Whichever, for 17 minutes until it was corrected, the impact of this crisis on Qantas’ reputation meant nothing to the families of the 400+ people on that flight, who would have been distraught and suffering a level of anguish that was entirely avoidable if a serious mistake in news reporting, like this one, didn’t occur.
And therein lies a warning: for all the principles that an organisation can follow to ensure its reputation is safeguarded, the speed of news, and the nature of wire services that measure speed against their competitors in seconds, means you can end up reacting to a crisis far worse in perception that reality. We all know speed compromises accuracy sometimes.
17 minutes is an age in the generation of new media: down the side bar of that Reuters webpage are buttons: Tweet This, Recommend or Share on Facebook, Share on LinkedIn, among others. One mouse click by a thousand people during the 17 minutes that story was uncorrected spreads the story to millions within seconds; most of whom will believe it as true because it comes from a credible source like Reuters.
That’s what happened yesterday. I, for one, would like to hear how that story ever appeared on the wires from a reputable news agency like Reuters; especially as it appeared without a crucial word in the story: Unconfirmed.