Sorry I’ve taken so long to address the local television coverage of the incident at the University at Buffalo a week ago. But I tend to do something that is increasingly rare and practically impossible to do in media circles these days: think before acting.

My initial instinct when watching the local news coverage about a report of a gunman at the largest library on UB’s North Campus in Amherst was to dismiss it as more evidence of TV news viewers being taken for an unnecessary ride.

But after further review, this is what the news world has become, due partly to all the social networks and cell phone applications that quickly spread unconfirmed reports as truth.

It was inevitable that the local news departments were atwitter over the report of a gunman on campus that led to the evacuation of a library and a search. No gunman was found, and there were no reports of any shots fired.

According to news reports, the news of the “phantom gunman” was partially spread by a parent who said she got a text from her daughter about the sighting of a gunman. People on the social networks —Facebook and Twitter— apparently spread the “news.”

“We did have people reporting unconfirmed rumors,” said UB spokesman Joe Brennan. “Once we were able to get facts out to the media, that all changed.”

Brennan, however, understands the changes in news reporting brought about by the social networks. Of course, people on social networks don’t generally follow journalistic guidelines. They spread rumors without worrying about having a second source.

“We live in a world of instant communication,” said Brennan. “People are willing to speculate. Journalists and public relations workers have the obligation to confirm facts. The blogosphere has no such obligationIt was hard to know exactly what was happening [initially]. People went with what they had.”

Channel 4 General Manager Chris Musial noted that information spreads much more rapidly through social networks and other means. “Whether it is [accurate] is determined later,” added Musial. “[Social networks] set up a whole network of considerations and things you have to think about.”

Local TV stations and newspapers practically have no choice now but to address rumors for fear that they will look foolish if what they ignore turns out to be true.

In the good old days before the social networks became the town crier, the story likely would have been given little attention by the local TV stations unless something happened. It might have been totally ignored by this newspaper, which put it on the top of the front page on Wednesday because so many people were inconvenienced and fearful of what might have been.

But at the end of the day Tuesday, the story never turned into a significant news event.

TV stations and newspapers are adapting to the changing times. The rumors became the story, as they did earlier this month on the outrageous and ultimately false rumors about the private life of Gov. David Paterson. The Paterson story became legitimate news when he publicly addressed it. In the same way, once UB officials sent out alerts to students and went on camera to address the media, the story about a possible gunman had to be covered.

Under the new rules, the local stations handled the story responsibly after some early missteps. They played it conservatively, explaining the fears and addressing them without overplaying them.

Of course, it is disturbing any time a reporter uses the term “unconfirmed reports” before giving some information, and that term was all over TV on Tuesday. If reports are unconfirmed, they are rumors and not worthy of airing.

Unfortunately, the days that two sources are needed to report a story have long since passed in the media. Thankfully, the TV stations didn’t go to wall-to-wall coverage a week ago as they are apt to do on any “breaking news” story.

“We didn’t think it warranted it,” said Musial. He added his news department “kind of went overboard” telling what university officials were saying and explaining why “we were doing what we were doing.”

They had reporters close to the scene, which hardly looked to be in a state of panic. If anything, the pictures at the scene had a calming effect.

“That’s the approach we took,” said Musial. “It was a measured response.”

The pictures made it appear that university and Amherst police were practicing the “better-safe- than sorry” theory and smartly making sure that they didn’t have a Virginia Tech on their hands. Undoubtedly, the memory of the deadly 2007 Virginia Tech attack made the situation more newsworthy and probably played into how the local TV stations covered it. In a sense, the stations were also practicing “better-safe-than-sorry” in a different way.

In the media’s view, it was better to cover a story that became of minor importance than to be sorry that they hadn’t taken it seriously enough if something really happened.

The late Walter Cronkite might be rolling over in his grave. But that’s the way it is in the new media world of 2010.