Is Google News slow to break stories?
I noticed this when Tim Russert died. A person came into the room and told me about the death and the first place I went to was the front page of Google News. I figured that it would have it plastered at the top if it were true. It was nowhere to be found. A quick look at CNN and the NY Times site and I saw it had already been posted.
It turns out Google News may be slow to break stories. They’re claiming that it was because of a technical glitch, but there have been other instances of delayed front-page articles for major news stories.
The “technical problem” (eyebrow-raising quotation marks are mine) must also have bitten Google News in the behind upon the sudden death of the Rev. Jerry Falwell on May 15 of last year. On that occasion, perhaps owing to Falwell’s greater fame, it took Google News less time — just over a half-hour — to catch up with its speedier media brethren.
Google brags that its news site doesn’t have any editors. But when it comes to huge news stories like this, maybe it would be prudent to have an editor or two monitoring cable shows and website for any breaking items. Of course then the site would be tainted, or so some would argue.
I guess when I read these sorts of questions, I just have to wonder does it matter if it takes a little longer to “break” the story.
I’m not a fan of the 24 hour news channels and I think I’d rather get an accurate in depth report than little drips of information that may or may not be right coming out from people who don’t necessarily know what they’re talking about.
I get even more worried when people talk about using Twitter and Wikipedia as their news sources. I don’t see any way you’re going to get an accurate picture of the situation like that.
Personally I didn’t find out about Russert’s death until hours after it happened and I don’t really feel any the poorer for that. I think less focus on speed would improve news reporting enormously.