Normally I don’t care that much about the chest-beating that social media evangelists say when events break on sites like Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, blogs, etc before it does in Main Stream Media sources. It shouldn’t be a surprise that witnesses to events can get information only quickly. It doesn’t mean that information is “better”, just it was fast. However, it’s eye-witness reporting and sometimes isn’t verified. It doesn’t take away from the value of the reporting, but I don’t feel like it’s as big of a competition as I think many make it out to be.
However, it’s been interesting to see how reporting of Iranian vote protests was covered this week. While CNN seemed quiet about the protests, the stories, videos, and photos from Iranians and the world streaming to social media sites like Twitter.
On the heels of this event was a Twitter-inspired conference called 140 Characters Conference in NYC. I’m going to pull some quotes from the TechCrunch article Is Twitter the CNN of the New Media Generation? of dialogue between Ann Curry of NBC, tech guru Robert Scoble, CNN anchor Rick Sanchez, and Clayton Morris of Fox News…
SCOBLE: “I wanted to learn more about the election in Iran and the crisis and the violence that was spilling onto the streets. I couldn’t find anything on CNN. In fact, all I could find was Larry King talking to motorcycle mechanics.”
SANCHEZ: ”Is news judgment changing? Yes! This is the first time we can connect directly with citizens who could be a reliable source aside from the talking heads and pretty faces that serve as news anchors.”
CURRY: ”While I may not be another ‘a pretty face,’ we have to look at whether or not mainstream media is covering the world fast enough and the answer is no…Should we be? Yes. But, right now, we can’t keep pace.”
SCOBLE: “[But] Where was CNN on that day, at that time?”
SANCHEZ: “We had people in Iran watching the events unfold, live. Our people were tear-gassed. We were there.”
SCOBLE: “How would we know that? Why didn’t you share that side of the story with us as it was happening? You couldn’t because your show wasn’t on!”
CURRY: “There are other stories that are important for people to hear, but don’t make broadcast.”
MORRIS: “There’s a tipping point right now with new, traditional, and social media. It’s conversation versus fact checking. No one has answers to where this convergence is leading.”
CURRY: “I learned about the last missile test in North Korea on Twitter. I turned on the TV and no one was reporting the story. I thought to myself, ‘this sucks.’ So, I jumped on Twitter and reported the facts as I found them in real time…I had to be careful however. I was receiving reactions and questions. The trick is communicating solid information without misleading anyone. One word can change how people interpret anything. I feel a great obligation to never twitter something that is wrong…once you lose [credibility], you’ve lost.”
SANCHEZ: “I’m bothered by people who use Twitter as shtick and people who think they’re going to change the world just because they’re using it. The race with Ashton, news teams that ‘go to the twitter boards’ while on TV to see what’s happening, it all seems contrived, like they’re trying to be part of the community, but instead they’re cheapening it.”
MORRIS: “There are old parts of new media that they [publishers and broadcasters] are comfortable with and aspects of new media that represent new ways to seem like they ‘get it.’ It all feels disingenuous though. Somewhere in the middle is the future. There was a point where fax bulletins were part of the breaking story.”
SANCHEZ: “Companies that don’t assign managers for social media will fail! [...] Twitter has made me a better journalist.”
I think what set this situation apart from others in the past is the length of time CNN took to begin to confirm and report these stories. I don’t know why there was such a delay, but there was.
What do you think about this and the role of New Media in the context of all media?
