As most of us have heard already, Michael Jackson was confirmed dead at the age of 50 earlier today (on about 50,000,000 news sites and stations).My dear friend Matt brought this up to me, as he read many Facebook statuses mourn over "MJ" (it took him a moment to realize that was NOT Michael Jordan). He then went on a Google news search, telling me that hundreds of articles were popping up about this -- within a 5 minute block, it jumped up another 100+ articles. Yet, only one news source claimed that he had died; all others confirmed that he was rushed to UCLA Medical due to cardiac arrest but couldn't confirm death. I mean, it makes sense...hospital regulation, patient privacy, etc.
I IMed A-Live, who told me that he was pretty sure MJ was gone. Via text/Twitter/Facebook/gchat/whatever means, he found out from a friend who is a nurse at UCLA Medical that the King of Pop had passed away this afternoon. I then ceased reading through Washington Post, CNN, New York Times, etc., though moments later, LA Times confirmed his death...but after everyone heard via a source such as Twitter. (Even now, as I am typing this, my friend is texting me in regards to a tweet she read about a deceased celebrity...I'm informing her that it is in fact Michael Jackson...)
I thought about this -- how in a way, news stations are going to have to compete against or at least keep up with this generation's technology.
My brother recently told me about a clip from Onion News (the spoof newspaper/station, which is fabulous) regarding an NYU dormitory fire. It was originally declared arson but soon was discovered as an accident, thanks to 40,000 iPhones, Blackberries, digital cameras, and Twitter updates.
Watch it here, because it's really awesome and speaks a great deal to the power (and ridiculousness, at times) of our modern technology. That, and it mocks our generation in general. Sadly. But funnily.
I recalled a video on BBC that I saw of President Barack Obama addressing the injustice going on in Iran.
At one point, he says this great quote that really does speak to the power our generation holds:
"No iron fist is strong enough to shut out the world from bearing witness to peaceful protests of justice. Despite the Iranian government's efforts to expel journalists & isolate itself, powerful images & poignant words have made their way to us through cellphones & computers, and so we've watched what the Iranian people are doing."On Youtube, you can watch such footage of Iran taken by citizens over there.
Because of the internet, we have the ability to watch in real time via webcam exactly what is going on in other parts of the world. We have surpassed news reporters and even gossip columnists with our Smart Phones, picture texts, video chats, and such. We can find out before Anderson Cooper does whether or not a major celebrity is declared dead. That is mind-blowing.Our generation is filled with non-professional journalists. Are you making yourself heard? How are you expressing yourself and what are you writing/typing/tweeting/texting/updating/uploading/IMing/talking about? Seriously.
Using Iran as an example, we can really see how technology has really been helpful in newsgathering. It is awesome. Twitpics were everywhere, there were tons of people twittering from the grounds of Tehran, it keeps people informed and very quickly too, first-handedly. You're right, it's mind-blowing.
ReplyDeleteBut there also lies the problem. Citizen journalism, as my journalism professors call it, who are also somewhat worried about this new advancement. And as a potential future journalist who is going through the formal training of story-writing, journalism ETHICS, and journalism LAW, I personally am a little wary of what's going on also. Yeah, getting information fast is awesome. But are the information you are getting accurate? Do the people giving you the information have the knowledge and the preparation to give you the information?
On Twitter, many opposition leaders in Iran have been telling people to change their location to Tehran. To confuse the Iranian government, so they'd have to censor everybody on Twitter that says they're from Iran, a task impossible to accomplish. But, obviously, this also confuses the validity of the information given by everybody claiming to be in "Tehran."
Are people checking and double checking their sources? Do people really ask questions about the shocking facts that they hear, or do they give into the shock? How many people are just twittering or passing information based on she-said, he-said? Where do you draw the line between being a "citizen journalist" and a "gossip"?
When given an important information, do people know how to handle that information? If the Pentagon Papers were to happen today, would Daniel Ellsberg twitter that information out or still give it to New York Times? Would twitter withhold the information for months while battling in U.S. Supreme Court with the intelligence agencies over First Amendment (freedom of press) and homeland security? Would people believe such agency secrets if it were leaked onto Twitter or blogs as oppose to a prestigious and well-respected newspaper such as NYTimes? Are there anonymous sources anymore? Can reporters protect anonymous sources? Are there validity in being anonymous anymore? Can you trust anonymous sources when absolutely anyone can be a "journalist"?
These are important questions to answer before giving up on Anderson Cooper and the professional journalists as a whole. They are trained in both ethics and law to deal with information. I don't have the answers, obviously. But I do believe that these questions are going to have to be answered soon (especially since it took CNN about 2 hours to confirm MJ's death after TMZ and Twitter leaked it). And there will be a compromise in between validity and speed, such as Hillary Clinton as the Sec of State having her own YouTube channel. :)
I'm not saying that journalists and news reporters should be disregarded. Trust me, for several years, I was a crazy journalism freak and know exactly the potential consequences of all this.
ReplyDeleteClearly, Twitter and Facebook updates are not valid sources of information -- come on, I refused to even trust TMZ as an accurate source for the MJ situation.
But my point is that these journalists, news stations, etc. need to get on their game with technology. If they don't, they'll fall behind and possibly become obsolete compared to news blogs or news tweets (because those clearly exist).
And more importantly, we're the ones that are feeding the news now. Before, it was a phone call about a store hold-up and then the reporters would have to rush down there to get first hand accounts and footage; now, we can text pictures and webcam real time information to these stations or via our own forums.
I think that's one of the awesome things about Barack Obama -- he's relatively tech-savvy for his age and he really does harness the power of it all to lead this country and intervene in this world.
The newspapers and stations will need to develop some system for legitimate internet/tech updates; but really, in a world when people from 5-years-olds to 85-years-olds have Twitter, MySpace, Facebook, Youtube accounts, blogs, etc, confirming information spilled on those sites won't be difficult. It's all about who you know, as it always has been. These reporters rely heavily on "who they know" -- they just need to hope now that the people they know are up-to-date so that information is transferred much faster than it used to be.
"Our generation is filled with non-professional journalists."
ReplyDeleteGood quote!