I first saw, make that heard about the events in Boston in a pretty traditional way. Television. The set was tuned to Shep Smith on FOX News. He always includes the proviso in his open saying, "Unless breaking news changes everything."
Boy did his show rundown change. I heard sirens in the background, yelling from crowds of people. After a minute or so I walked over and saw what was happening. Two explosions at the finish line of the Boston Marathon.
Explosions. Death. Deja Vu all over again.
All the networks immediately went into "Wall to Wall" mode, i.e. non-stop coverage. So did Social Media. Facebook and Twitter blew up, with much of what was posted right from the scene by people who saw and felt it happen. Talk about "Eyewitness News."
As was the case with recent events like Newtown, the information being posted on Social Media was immediate but not always accurate. Likewise for traditional media.
It's in our nature to want to know what happened, how it happened and who did it immediately if not sooner. Both traditional and new media are great for the immediate part.
But the storylines changed on the fly. There were reports that another bomb went off at the JFK Library. Not true. There were reports of up to five other bombs found. Not true. There were and are reports of "Persons of interest." Maybe true. Then there is stuff we likely are being kept from knowing. Sometimes it's important in investigating crimes of this nature to keep certain information confidential to help catch the bad people.
Traditional media is good at spreading misinformation too. But at least they attribute the source and add they can't confirm the story. An example being the Wall Street Journal reporting 5 other bombs being found. More than one network repeated the story, attributing the source but adding the proviso "We can't confirm." One can argue, fairly, the merits of reporting something you can't confirm. The WSJ is very reputable. But a great rule of journalism is "Attribution before assertion." It should, but of course can't be enforced on Social Media. The whole "1st Amendment thing."
Social Media doesn't play by the same rules. Stuff is posted, re-posted and goes viral in moments. Attribution? Accuracy? So 20th century.
Then there's imagery. A picture or video clip that says it all. A great example is the now iconic shot of the first explosion going off, knocking down a 78 year old runner to the ground. We saw it over and over and over.
About as fast as the "experts" started appearing on traditional media giving often educated viewpoints, came the online pundits with snarky remarks and potshots. The left picking on the right, the right picking on the left and no useful purpose being served. Then of course, the conspiracy folks. They love Social Media.
On a positive note came the many heartfelt posts from all those in our Social Media Networks expressing their emotions and support for Boston. A trend I truly like are the images that are created almost instantly and shared. For the most part, a positive aspect of Social Media in a situation like Boston. And who would have believed the crowd at Yankee Stadium singing "Sweet Caroline?" A good thing.
Boy did his show rundown change. I heard sirens in the background, yelling from crowds of people. After a minute or so I walked over and saw what was happening. Two explosions at the finish line of the Boston Marathon.
Explosions. Death. Deja Vu all over again.
All the networks immediately went into "Wall to Wall" mode, i.e. non-stop coverage. So did Social Media. Facebook and Twitter blew up, with much of what was posted right from the scene by people who saw and felt it happen. Talk about "Eyewitness News."
As was the case with recent events like Newtown, the information being posted on Social Media was immediate but not always accurate. Likewise for traditional media.
It's in our nature to want to know what happened, how it happened and who did it immediately if not sooner. Both traditional and new media are great for the immediate part.
But the storylines changed on the fly. There were reports that another bomb went off at the JFK Library. Not true. There were reports of up to five other bombs found. Not true. There were and are reports of "Persons of interest." Maybe true. Then there is stuff we likely are being kept from knowing. Sometimes it's important in investigating crimes of this nature to keep certain information confidential to help catch the bad people.
Traditional media is good at spreading misinformation too. But at least they attribute the source and add they can't confirm the story. An example being the Wall Street Journal reporting 5 other bombs being found. More than one network repeated the story, attributing the source but adding the proviso "We can't confirm." One can argue, fairly, the merits of reporting something you can't confirm. The WSJ is very reputable. But a great rule of journalism is "Attribution before assertion." It should, but of course can't be enforced on Social Media. The whole "1st Amendment thing."
Social Media doesn't play by the same rules. Stuff is posted, re-posted and goes viral in moments. Attribution? Accuracy? So 20th century.
Then there's imagery. A picture or video clip that says it all. A great example is the now iconic shot of the first explosion going off, knocking down a 78 year old runner to the ground. We saw it over and over and over.
About as fast as the "experts" started appearing on traditional media giving often educated viewpoints, came the online pundits with snarky remarks and potshots. The left picking on the right, the right picking on the left and no useful purpose being served. Then of course, the conspiracy folks. They love Social Media.
On a positive note came the many heartfelt posts from all those in our Social Media Networks expressing their emotions and support for Boston. A trend I truly like are the images that are created almost instantly and shared. For the most part, a positive aspect of Social Media in a situation like Boston. And who would have believed the crowd at Yankee Stadium singing "Sweet Caroline?" A good thing.
Certainly a positive impact of the technology we carry in our pockets including the cameras in our cell phones is the very likely chance a picture someone took on their smart phone could help solve the case.
Ultimately, I remember this comment from President Reagan who in very analog times said, "Trust but verify." What he said then, fits well in today's digital times.
Immediacy doesn't always mean accuracy.
Brian Olson
Owner/Consultant
"We start the conversation about you"
No comments:
Post a Comment