Piaras Kelly PR - Public Relations in Ireland

Roy Greenslade points out that journalists are using Wikipedia as a source of breaking news and links to a New York Times article on the subject. While it’s very interesting, I have a number of reservations about its use as a breaking news source. Forgetting questions about the reliability of its contributors for a moment, you only have to look at the decision by the BBC to introduce a time delay on live events following its coverage of the Beslan siege to get a sense of why Wikipedia should be used with care as a breaking news source. At the time of the BBC’s decision, the London Independent reported:

Rolling news channels, including BBC News 24, broadcast footage of highly distraught children, near-naked and bloodied, fleeing from School Number One after two bombs exploded, marking the end of a six- day siege in which 344 hostages died, half of them children. The scenes provoked provoked horror among viewers around the world.

There was criticism in the days that followed the end of the siege that some of the coverage by TV channels and newspapers had been too intrusive. Audiences pointed in particular to close-up images of children screaming, and of a small child seemingly climbing back into the school to try and save her relatives.

Although a BBC spokes-man said the corporation only received a ‘handful’ of complaints over the scenes, it is thought the coverage caused disquiet in the organisation. A BBC spokes-man said: ‘Every channel was carrying footage, not just ourselves. When the bombs went off, I’m sure questions were being asked, that maybe we didn’t need to see children being blown up. It is about consideration of the audience, who do not need to see things like that to understand the severity of what is occurring.’

The spokesman conceded that the guidelines, which state that a time delay ‘must be installed when broadcasting coverage of sensitive and challenging events’, had been ‘forced’ as a result of the atrocity, but added that they were in any case due to be reviewed.

Interestingly between the time I read Greenslade’s commentary and the time of posting this, a harrowing news story caught my attention and underlined my reservations about its use as a news source. Chris Benoit, a high profile WWE wrestler in the States, killed his wife and son before taking his own life recently. It emerged in the week after the incident that Chris Benoit’s wikipedia entry predicted the murders. The Times Online reports that:

Detectives investigating the suicide of the professional wrestler Chris Benoit, and the murder of his wife and son, are perplexed by a change made to the online encylopaedia Wikipedia 14 hours before the bodies were discovered.

The change said that Benoit – known as the “Canadian Crippler” and “Rabid Wolverine” – had missed a weekend match “due to personal reasons stemming from the death of his wife, Nancy”

While the incident has been put down to pure fluke, it highlights why Wikipedia isn’t a reliable breaking news source. If a Wikipedia moderator is going flag the entry and say that it needs a reliable source, journalists using it as a breaking news source should also show similar restraint.

The Benoit murder case has also proven to be a very interesting news story to watch develop from a crisis communications point of view. Media speculation has been rampant and the press has been very quick to try and draw a link between steroid use and the atrocity. The WWE were quick to respond and point out that the premeditated nature of the killings would appear to rule out a steroid induced rage. The tragedy is more likely the result of the terrible toll that professional wrestling puts on the personal lives of its stars.

Technorati Tags: Chris Benoit, Piaras Kelly, Wikipedia