Why do we need to know about this?This week, several online media outlets pressed the wrong button and Amanda Knox (who, with her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, was cleared of the 2007 murder of the English student Meredith Kercher) was reported as having been found guilty, instead of not guilty. The Guardianwas among the outlets, as were Sky News and the Sun, but the Daily Maildrew most flak because its alternate report didn't just stick with the non-facts, it went completely pulp fiction.
Give us a taste"As Knox realised the enormity of what judge Hellman was saying she sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears," wrote the journalist. "A few feet away Meredith's mother Arline, her sister Stephanie and brother Lyle, who had flown in especially for the verdict, remained expressionless, staring straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family." Glancing over just once. Nice touch that.
How long was it before someone realised this was the opposite of what had happened?The piece was online for either 90 seconds (the Daily Mailsays) or 25 minutes (according to those who took a screen grab of it). Either way, it was one of those moments when the public gets a look behind the curtain.
One of those moments? Are there many more?It happens often enough. Premature obituaries are the most obvious example. Charles Haughey and the Queen Mother are among those whose pre-prepared obits were inadvertently published before their deaths. One journalist described it as the media's "dirty secret" that there are often two versions of a story ready to go at the push of a button. Roy Greenslade, on his Guardianblog, cited the Chicago Tribune's famous "Dewey defeats Truman" front page from 1948, and wrote of his own reporting of the 1979 trial for murder and conspiracy of former Liberal party leader Jeremy Thorpe, in which he had two versions ready to go depending on the verdict, each as narratively thrilling as the other.
Is this bad?There is nothing inherently wrong in being ready to report one of two outcomes. Sports writing does this all the time, with reports and colour pieces written during the match and topped off with a paragraph written seconds after the final whistle.
At least that's only a game – this was a major court caseThe two-story practice is often applied in big court cases, not just because of the two-tone nature of verdicts, but because much research and writing is done during the trial, so that in-depth pieces are ready to go once the verdict is announced.
So where did the Daily Mail get this accidentally published hogwash?The Mailclaims that its quotes came from the prosecutors in advance of a possible guilty verdict, but embargoed until then. And several outlets, along with many people on Twitter, misunderstood the judge's reading of the verdict and declared Knox guilty of murder.
Couldn't somebody have done a bit of checking before they published the story?With live blogs so prevalent, it's natural that such mistakes will be made under pressure. With the need to be first on Google News, pressing a button quickly has become part of a journalist's job spec.
