Any 40-something is quite comfortable with “old media,” such as newspapers, magazines, and television. If you’re like me, though, you’re also fascinated with “new media,” such as social networks on the internet. You’re probably wondering how all of this eventually will shake down when the dust settles. With many traditional news outlets experiencing financial difficulties, in what form will we get our news in another ten years? Lately, we’ve had some events transpire that show some of the pitfalls with gathering information from “new media,” if it comes from the wrong source.
A few weeks ago, Twitter was abuzz with news that the California Supreme Court had overturned the ban on gay marriage. There was one problem. It wasn’t true. Someone had tweeted the news, linking back to an LA Times article from exactly one year earlier. That article, though, dealt with the decision that the California Supreme Court had issued prior to the state’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Twitter users retweeted the original tweet, and the news spread rapidly.
A few days later, readers of the Philadelphia Daily news on Philly.com read that Philadelphia Eagles players Asante Samuel and Trent Cole had “joined the Twitter revolution in the last week and Asante, in particular, seems to be enjoying the interaction, especially for a guy who rarely talks to the media other than after games.” The article went on to quote Samuel’s Twitter prediction of an Eagles’ Super Bowl win. Shortly thereafter, though, the Daily News issued an apology, stating that "[t]he Daily News got duped.” The apology further stated that the team had confirmed that neither player even had a Twitter account.
Today, the Associated Press reported that St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa was suing Twitter. In the suit, La Russa claimed that he was the victim of a fake account that not only used his name, but also made light of drunken driving and the death of two players.
These stories raise more questions than answers. Are social networking sites even a reliable source of information? With newspapers and other old media slowly dying off, more people are relying on networks like Twitter for information. But are the sites themselves to blame? The sites certainly aren’t to blame in disseminating the information, but should more be done to verify the identity of celebrity posters? Is this even feasible? Or is the burden on the user to have a more critical eye when viewing “news” on a social network?
I saw today that one of my Facebook friends joined a group, “Restaurant Servers Against Oprah’s Tipping Advice.” The group’s description explained that “Oprah Winfrey recently advised her listeners to the notion that it is fine to tip 10% or less to restaurant servers due to the current economic crisis.” I have to admit that my first reaction was to feel annoyance towards Oprah statements. But then I started to wonder whether the premise of the group was even true. A search around the internet didn’t find any definitive answers one way or the other. The only way to really know would be to go back over every episode of Oprah’s show, and see if she did in fact state that a 10% tip was acceptable.
One conclusion I take from all of this is that somehow journalism must survive the current upheaval in old media. Journalism might not take the same form that it has traditionally taken, with reporters working at newspapers, but a free and open society needs some way to test the truth of statements. What shape might this take in the modern world?
Bobby Travis says:
I couldn't agree more, here, about the potentially huge flaw in accountability that lurks in today's media. In a climate of popular sensationalism and desperate newspapers, all sorts of weird and wonderful things have been surfacing in all of the media outlets. I have seen tv and other traditional news sources take more and more to editorial-style “reports” (and I am not just referring to Fox News, either…), which I assume is to try and fit in better with the blog reading crowd. I have also seen hugely popular blog sites throwing their weight around with their opinionated postings. While that can be fun and spark a conversation or 20, I like to make up my own mind, thank you very much!
After a certain point, one could argue that those bloggers have a responsibility to post in an unbiased manner and act more within the traditional guidelines of reporting (which I note again, have been blurred…) — Or one could simply yell FREEDOM! and argue in the other direction. I don't have the answer.
What I do know, however, is that when combined with the advent and imminent takeover of real time media, one has to be careful not to get caught up in a giant rumour-mill style game of “Telephone”.
June 24, 2009 — 12:57 am
Evan says:
Your post brings up another vexing question- as the old style of media dies off, from where will we get the original news? Most blogs and social media outlets get their information from traditional journalists “on the front lines.” What happens when those journalists aren't there any longer? Even something seemingly mundane as a sports blog has the same problem. The legion of sports bloggers usually get information from the stories filed by the local beat writers. They'd have a tough time if that source dried up.
What's going on in Iran may be giving a preview. With media access limited, even mainstream TV has started reading off Twitter accounts of events on the air, with the words “Unverified” on the screen.
On another note, a few days after I originally wrote this post, Twitter announced “Verified Accounts,” which would give celebrities a way to have a badge on their accounts confirming that they are who they say they are.
June 24, 2009 — 6:29 am
Bobby Travis says:
True. True. — And True. I think that traditional news media (and music and tv/movie conglomerates as well) need to update and proerly embrace the medium instead of whining and attempting to desperately hold on to their old ways. That would provide the easiest transition. Failing that, some of the more prominent blog sites should set the trend of incorporating some aspects of the “tried and true” journalism models into their workflow and start hiring and deploying trained journalists (which some have likely done). This may accelerate the change. Ideally, both should happen. Unfortunately there is too much backbiting, desperation and shouts of “bloggers ARE real reporters” and “no they're NOT!!!” and “I know you are but what am I???” floating around to actually get anything done. And even if it does eventually go that way, it may take something huge (as in a crisis and/or giant reporting mistake or both) to make anything happen — and when it does happen, one has to ask: Will it already be to late? Will news media (and I include blogs in this, and social media) already be so so polluted that we won't even be able to pretend that the news sources are accurate anymore (like we have been doing for years)? Is our current trend toward sensationalism going to cause the world to implode??
I should note, too, that there is another aspect to this catch 22… While social media is, in some ways, dealing a deathblow to traditional news and to trusted news, it is also forcing the current news to attempt to be more accurate in what they report (stupid opinions aside) — lest they be butchered by the people who were there and are connected online. This, I think, is a good thing — but the cynic in me believes it will only last until the governments and their spin doctors gain control of the news sources again, which they inevitably will try to do, as they have in Iran, China, various African countries, etc, (and as they are likely doing, with more subtlety, in our own back yards as well). The Man will eventually succeed, to varying degrees, and amidst cries of “Big Brother cometh!”, “The end is nigh!” and, “Would you look at that crazy?”, the general populace of the 1st world will go to sleep at night thinking that they are secure and in control, and that what they are doing online to monitor the governments of the world is making a grand impact.
Or so says the conspiracy theorist that occasionally invades my brain.
June 26, 2009 — 11:48 am
Evan says:
I think you're right on both counts. We're already seeing a blending of the lines between old and new media. I was just thinking yesterday about some story from years ago where big media controlled government, and how that appears so far from they way it will actually be as the little guy has more and more tools at his disposal.
One more Twitter related story. Evidently, after the Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson news, someone started a rumor that Jeff Goldblum had died in a climbing accident, and that spread like crazy. It turned out to be a hoax.
June 26, 2009 — 1:47 pm