September 3, 2010

citizen journalism is not: melbourne airport example

timing could not have been more opportune, there was some debate after my posting on citizen journalism.

so here’s the problem with selling twitter as a mainstream news source: without fact checking it’s just one big rumour mill.

see what happens when jonoh tells the world that there is a fire on a plane today in melbourne. the “news” spreads like wildfire and the twemes go crazy when in fact jonoh was not even on the flight!

twitter is a brilliant medium, but we need to still apply some rules to make it credible as a news source.

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Ping.fm Post to StumbleUpon

citizen journalism is not journalism

every time there is some horrible disaster the twitterati / blogosphere lights up with almost jubilant vindication. it’s starting to grate.

i was not conscious of this until i saw a Tweet by blogger @longzheng:

it’s a shame it takes an accident to “show off” the power of Twitter and community journalism. let’s just accept it works already.

first and foremost, let’s stop using disasters to sell and justify social media – it’s verging on ambulance chasing now: denver plane crash, mumbai terror attacks and most recently usair crash in the hudson to name a few.

furthermore, having had some time to watch all of these events unfold and evaluate what’s being said, i don’t think that citizen journalism is really journalism. i think at best they’re eyewitness accounts at worst they’re complete fabrications. the fact that someone captures something on their camera phone or tweets something doesn’t make it journalism.

do we call it cctv journalism when cctv footage is captured of a robbery by cctv?

it becomes journalistic when:

  • someone takes that footage;
  • interviews witnesses;
  • interviews police;
  • interviews the victim(s);
  • writes / records a meaningful story and
  • someone verifies the facts quoted.

i don’t dispute the value of social media tools in recording an eyewitness account but let’s not engage in social media jihadism about it. twitter and twitpic are certainly useful for feeding information back in real time about an event. a journalist or blogger can then go back over this information and use it as part of the steps above to write a piece of journalism.

the intelligent consumption of media means that you constantly evaluate what you are reading and not merely accepting it as fact. this is less likely to happen if you are reading an established publication that you already trust because of their reputation. Calling a hashtag news does not fall into the “intelligent consumption” category, in fact I would call it indiscriminate gluttony of the social media variety.

finally, just from a purely consumer perspective i don’t want to consume my news in a fragmented piecemeal fashion over 50 different social media sites. i want a cohesive account – a story. i may read several stories to get differing viewpoints but i don’t want to read my news in 1000 140 character chunks.

eye witness accounts will always have a place – as will “citizen journalism”. will it replace the millions of talented individuals who pore over the information and tell us a story? not in the next hundred years.

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Ping.fm Post to StumbleUpon

social media: do we need editors?

i am very anti-censorship but i read an article in today’s sydney morning herald that led to a stream of thoughts.

for the most part, journalists are an ethical bunch and adhere to a code. where the areas are grey, an editor steps in and ensures that stories are truthful and conducted in a manner fitting of the publication.

in the story above, while the police were trying to safely resolve a potential suicide jumper, a bunch of kids were actually goading the trouble teen to jump. a witness alleges that the teens then took photos on their camera phones.

i don’t know of any presso or journo that would have actually done something like that to get a story, and almost certainly, the photos of a suicide would not run.

however, in this age of citizen journalism, where are the checks and balances?

i am not suggesting that these kids were goading the jumper to jump so that they could get footage, but it certainly opens the door to the possibility of exploitation for the sake of a high hitcount on your youtube/qik video.

there is no editor of the internet, and neither should there be, but how do we simply protect ethics and good taste?

there are two issues here:

  • the regulation of news bloggers and
  • the classification of blogs that may carry contentious content.

does legislation need to be introduced in order to prevent the coercion of vulnerable individuals, or is it covered under existing legislation?

should a blogger be subject to the same standards of review by the office of film and literature classification?

i think we need to start thinking of these things as a community before they are thrust upon us by lawmakers with no idea.

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Ping.fm Post to StumbleUpon