The Value of "Being First"

I've watched with a lot of curiosity as the news media has tried to figure out Barack Obama's choice for Vice President. This led to a good deal of speculation and revelations from unnamed sources.

In journalism, there's always a good amount of emphasis on being the first to break a story. But as a former TV News reporter and anchor, I've come to regard the quest to be first as often an empty one. The premise is that viewers will see that you had the story first and thus you will gain their viewing allegiance. Think back four years ago. Who was first to break the story of John Kerry selecting John Edwards as his running mate? The same question applies 8 years ago to the Bush/Cheney ticket. The answers do not readily come to mind.

If you are breaking a news story that no one else is aware of, like Watergate, then the value of being first is considerable. But there is a difference between reporting something first and being the first in a pack to report on something first. A viewer will likely select a new source for a variety of reasons, which research has found can include surprising things like wardrobe and hairstyles.

Contrary to what many editors and news directors believe, their audience does not sit at home with scorecards to determine who scooped whom. The idea that "first makes you the best" is an out of date metric.