Public Editor Post Analysis: Being First Sometimes Isn't Worth it, the Death of Chief Justice Antonin Scalia

          When Chief Justice Antonin Scalia passed away on February 13, 2016, news corporations were abuzz with the tragedy. While all the major mass media corporations all had the news out quickly, the Times ended up posting the news online last, at 5:39 PM, while companies such as CNN and The Guardian posted at 5:20 PM and 5:04 PM, respectively. On top of being late to post online, the news also was not found in the Sunday paper, and much to the dismay of many readers, articles pertaining to the battle over Scalia's position in the court and the devious political intentions surrounding it were quickly released. This is due to them feeling that the Times was not giving Scalia his due respect by immediately talking about his successor right after his passing. For these reasons, several letters were sent in to the Times complaining about how they were not only slow on releasing articles about Scalia, but also shamefully disrespectful to him.
           While the points of these readers may be painfully valid, they are also essentially accusing the Times of not being perfect. This is because it is more important to get all of the proper facts before releasing an article. If a news network releases an article quickly, but it is wrong, then it could damage the reputation of the firm, while a late, but correct article may not receive as much traffic as an early article, it does not carry the potential to damage a companies reputation as severely as an incorrect article. This is due to an incorrect article violating the crucial bond between readers and news corporations, trust. If readers do not trust a news organization to provide them with the correct facts, then the readers will simply go to another news corporation for information. An incorrect article would critically reduce the amount of trust a reader has for a network, so it is more important to get the facts right than to be quick on the draw.
           As for discussing the politics of the successor of the position in the Supreme Court, the Times made the right decision. While it most likely was rather disrespectful to the memory of Scalia, politics does not stop for anything, so this is essentially a case of "the show must go on." Even though it would have been more respectful to let there be a time gap between Scalia's death and the political struggle over his former position, the duty of the Times is to report the news as it happens in order to keep its readers informed and up to date on current events, including those of the political sphere. Just because Scalia's heart came to halt did not mean that politics had to as well.