Reporting in the Twitter Age

New Media: Reporting, Hype, or Hysteria?

There are two major sources of instantaneous news: Cable News (CNN, FOX, MSNBC) and the Internet. I’ve talked a lot over the last few months about how Twitter users, like myself, constantly scoop the major news sources. Part of this is because the mainstream media doesn’t do a very good job of covering complex stories, and instead they rely on car chases and political gaffs to fill out their hours. Real, in depth reporting takes good sources and constant analysis, as well as constant disaggregation and explanation for the general public. In the case of the situation in Iran, live blogging (HuffingtonPost, NYTimes, LATimes) and the new social media (Facebook, Twitter, the blogosphere) have provided faster, more nuanced, deeper, and often more accurate news coverage than major media sources.

But a few events recently have highlighted some major problems in the way breaking news is covered by ALL media sources. Balloon boy showed that sexy video and lots of speculation can take the entire nation on a wild goose chase. However, compared to some news stories, the Balloon incident was NOTHING!

Reporting breaking news, like the tragic shooting at Fort Hood is a difficult, messy business. Technology allows us to instantly access information, before it is vetted or verified, and often without revealing the original source (at least initially). This is compounded by our lust for 24 hour, up-to-the-minute information (and entertainment… or infotainment). This means that because the media, including web 2.0 users, have information, they feel the desire and feel the obligation to disperse it as fast as possible. There are many reasons for this. Media is all about having the scoop, being first, finding information and attracting people to your blog/channel because you have the source. The technology of television, radio, and now the Internet also doesn’t lend itself to “dead air.” You have to get that info out, as quickly as possible. People want to know.

I deal with this problem when using Twitter to disseminate information on the Iranian Revolution, or any other developing story. Obviously, not all of the info on the Internet is accurate. Responsibility takes restraint. However, when the information doesn’t seem right, like the reports that the Supreme Leader in Iran was dead, checking sources and being skeptical is easier. During that incident, the debate about the validity of the reports was happening simultaneously with the publishing of those reports. The buzz on Twitter proved that instantaneous information spreading world wide didn’t necessarily mean that rumors were all-powerful. “Don’t believe everything that you read” became the unspoken mantra of the moment.

The real problem occurs when the information involves panic. For instance, the reports during September 11th that there was a bomb exploding at the Capitol Building in D.C. spread quickly, and they matched the mood of the day. During many protests in Iran, rumors about specific threats or instances of violence spread quickly and were hard to verify, i.e., this story I Tweeted:

“Unconfirmed: RT Basij night attack -WATCH THIS! – PPL NOT SAFE AT THEIR OWN HOMES/APPTS EITHER: http://ow.ly/fKNU #IranElection #NEDA” 10:22 PM Jun 24th from web

Is this responsible reporting? Yes it is. All that has been urged is caution, the story has been flagged as unconfirmed, and this kind of fast reporting might have saved a life. Also, there is potential to follow up. With this post out there, the detective work would begin. Do I have another source I can trust that can confirm/deny this source? Is there a blog/newspaper report that can do the same? Does this fit with what I already know? Others are asking the same question, and eventually the story becomes confirmed, a falsehood is exposed, or the story fades into nothing. This kind of reporting is at least as responsible, and much faster, than cable news, plus it is often clear exactly where the blogger is getting his/her information, and how solid that information is.

The value of this new media is often scorned by the major media powers. Arianna Huffington has a new post about the struggle between old media moguls, such as Rupert Murdock, and the new media revolution. She points out the New York Times, a titan of journalism, both got the Iranian election story dead right (by using new media methods) AND dead wrong (using old media methods):

By my accounts, the NYT live blog was one of the best sources of news from inside Iran for weeks.

Which brings me to my next point: money. The struggle of newspapers is almost a cliche these days. However, online journalism like Huffingtonpost and Slate are booming. Just like the music industry has struggled with the adoption of new technology, the newspaper industry needs to realize that the idea of cutting down trees, printing news, transporting them all over, and having people buy your ENTIRE publication… these ideas a quaint at best. This isn’t a green model, it isn’t a fast model, and it isn’t a new media model.

Paying for content is just as bad, or maybe worse, because it restricts the full capability of technology. Look at my blog: I link to and from dozens of news sources, hundreds of articles, on various subjects. I don’t link to “nytimes.com,” but rather I link to specific stories that support or add information to my posts. If I had to pay for online content like, say, the Wall Street Journal, then if I linked to a story I liked there, the only people who could follow the link would also have to pay for the WSJ. Why would I do that? I could probably find a respectable blogger who commented on the WSJ and link to them, which is free for both me and my readers. If online content was restricted by any sort of pay-for-content model, much of the purpose of viewing news online is lost. At least reading a paper newspaper makes you look smart, and you can wrap a fish in it or line a bird cage at the end of the process. Paid online content is just a foolish idea.

And it’s a short lived idea. As older generations, newspaper generations, die off, and younger generations become a larger percentage of the populous, pay-for-content providers will find that their business model is a stop-gap to the inevitable dirt nap.

As Arianna Huffington points out, the problems with the media, through the 2000 and 2004 elections, to the coverage of the lead up to the Iraq War, to the legendary failure to predict the economic crisis, are now well known. She argues, however, that the bloggers, the real “pit bulls” of journalism, are changing the journalistic scene, and those who cling to the old media models better catch up with the Internet Age.

Huffington is right, Twitter can be reporting, new media sources and free content are the future… and my readers and I are on the leading edge of the revolution. Thanks, and congratulations!