When did Journalists come to believe that Twitter, Facebook and other forms of electronic media was quality journalism?

[RbSX]

Now I know this post isn't exactly on politics and news, it's more of a criticism.

With the gag on journalists in Iran I realize that one of the very few methods of gathering news is through amateur video and through twitter messages, and emails.

While the situation dictates that this is the only method of collecting information, it seems that more and more media outlets are becoming dependant on facebook and twitter. I mean come on, how do they think that using media forms such as this is acceptable or credible?

It seems to me that journalists are getting lazy, news is becoming amateurish, but to me this is complete drivel.

When I was taking some journalism classes last semester, amateur news reporting was a hotly debated subject, ultimately as a class we decided that while a camera in everyone's hand was useful, ultimately there was no scholastic standard and the stuff that was making it as news was really a joke.

Really, in the city where I live news channels would dive into a person's facebook to steal pictures. (Yes I realize that if people don't want stuff to be seen they can set their privacy rules).

I think it's really pathetic for CNN, NBC, CBC, etc etc to scavenge peoples facebooks and twitters for news.

What do you guys think?

 

[ZzZGuy]

News or no news when it comes to Iran in recent days. Take your pick.

 

[smack Down]

What a surprise a bunch of journalism students think they should be the gate keepers to what is news.

 

[Sacrilege]

It is better to get a cornucopia of raw imagery, information from amateurs and synthesize these sources together, than to rely on some journalist to filter information for you.

In a situation such as Iran, assuming a journalist could go out to the streets, they would only report what they felt was "worthy." As a single person they would only be able to see and hear so much. And they would inject their bias and interests into the subject they report, filtering it for the viewer.

I have seen "journalists" (i.e. Twitter monitors) on CNN profusely explaining that they cannot "verify" the content they receive from Twitter or other websites. Do they mean Dan Rather style verification? Nancy Grace style emotional filtering? Fox News style injection of bias? I'd rather take my chances with the raw data and make my own conclusions, than have some elitist journalist decide what is important for me to see.

I realize that for many people it is difficult to draw their own conclusions, and that is why media telling them what to think and feel will always be here to stay. But the proliferation of raw data through social networking sites, blogs, and Youtube can only provide purer information to people who make the effort to view multiple sources and draw their own conclusions.

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: smack Down
What a surprise a bunch of journalism students think they should be the gate keepers to what is news.

:thumbsup:

They think their doing a service for society.

 

[RbSX]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
News or no news when it comes to Iran in recent days. Take your pick.

I'm not specifically talking about Iran, in this case it's completely justified.

 

[RbSX]

Originally posted by: smack Down
What a surprise a bunch of journalism students think they should be the gate keepers to what is news.

I'm not saying that stuff isn't news, however, isn't sifting through someone's facebook and twitter just a little bit ridiculous?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: RbSX

Originally posted by: smack Down
What a surprise a bunch of journalism students think they should be the gate keepers to what is news.

I'm not saying that stuff isn't news, however, isn't sifting through someone's facebook and twitter just a little bit ridiculous?

Why would that be ridiculous? It's searching public records.

Information is where you find it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Twitter, Facebook and other forms of communication are a means to gather raw, eyewitness accounts. These sources of information pose two issues: the volume of information without the resources to verify their accuracy and the bias of the individual communicating through these tools.

These tools have become incredibly powerful for groups to collaborate and organize...look at the impact they had on our recent Presidential election.

However, it becomes a problem when major news outlets simply grab feeds from these sources rather than filter them for credibility. While it may be newsworthy to report what groups are doing through these tools, the content is vulnerable as a means of spreading propoganda.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RbSX

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
News or no news when it comes to Iran in recent days. Take your pick.

I'm not specifically talking about Iran, in this case it's completely justified.

Then why bring it up, now? You just shattered the entire premise of your own OP. :roll:

 

[MovingTarget]

There will be cases where these are extremely valuable in getting eyewitness accounts of events that reporters cannot easily get to, such as in Iran currently. However, CNN, FOX, and the others have been gearing up for using these for quite a while before this with their ireport/ureport and reading comments directly from twitter and the like on air. Although these forms of media do have their place, I fear that we will see journalists relying more and more on them when they shouldn't. Reading a twitter feed is much cheaper than doing any actual investigative reporting. This is why we currently see more 'reality' shows than actual written sitcoms/dramas during primetime.

 

[RbSX]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
There will be cases where these are extremely valuable in getting eyewitness accounts of events that reporters cannot easily get to, such as in Iran currently. However, CNN, FOX, and the others have been gearing up for using these for quite a while before this with their ireport/ureport and reading comments directly from twitter and the like on air. Although these forms of media do have their place, I fear that we will see journalists relying more and more on them when they shouldn't. Reading a twitter feed is much cheaper than doing any actual investigative reporting. This is why we currently see more 'reality' shows than actual written sitcoms/dramas during primetime.

Bingo. This is exactly what I'm worried about.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Networks don't do any investigative reporting now anyway. They only repeat the press releases and talking points of various governments/companies/groups/people anyway, or have some talking heads argue point vs. counterpoint with little regard for what actually is truth.

 

[SilentRunning]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Networks don't do any investigative reporting now anyway. They only repeat the press releases and talking points of various governments/companies/groups/people anyway, or have some talking heads argue point vs. counterpoint with little regard for what actually is truth.

This

 

[Tab3076]

When did Journalists come to believe that Twitter, Facebook and other forms of electronic media was quality journalism?

When Twitter,Facebook and other forms of electronic media gave them money so they'd put them on tv.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I think it's really pathetic for CNN, NBC, CBC, etc etc to scavenge peoples facebooks and twitters for news.

Can you link to any examples (besides Iran)?

Your example of using photos from Facebook to accompany a news story seems less intrusive then the old method of sending a guy with five 'o clock shadow and half-empty bottle of gin in his coat pocket to pound on the door of a grieving family to ask for a picture of the victim to use.

 

[eits]

journalists don't think facebook, twitter, etc are forms of quality journalism. i dunno who told you that or why the hell you got that idea.

 

[DaveSimmons]

OP is not displaying quality research methods

Needs more:
- testable hypothesis
- gathering of evidence

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RbSX

I think it's really pathetic for CNN, NBC, CBC, etc etc to scavenge peoples facebooks and twitters for news.

I think they're doing and making the best they can with what's available, rather than crying about what's not.

 

[Deeko]

Its not just regular news - sports news do it too. ESPN has written full-length articles based around 40 character tweets from their favorites like Terrell Owens.

Its annoying.

 

[rchiu]

News is going the same way as any other type of info in the Internet age. Abundant and easy to get to, but shallow and easily manupulated with lots of false info.

 

[cKGunslinger]

The TV in the breakroom at work is always tuned to FoxNews. I once watched Trace Galager(?) turn his back to the camera, look up a TV monitor, and interview the guy there (in a different studio) over what looked like a 1996-era webcam, as *that* guy read the latest Tweets to Fox.

Riveting.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: RbSX

Originally posted by: smack Down
What a surprise a bunch of journalism students think they should be the gate keepers to what is news.

I'm not saying that stuff isn't news, however, isn't sifting through someone's facebook and twitter just a little bit ridiculous?

As opposed to getting the 'official' story from an information officer? Which one is more likely to contain some truth?

To their credit, these ridiculous news outlets are crediting the sources.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
The TV in the breakroom at work is always tuned to FoxNews. I once watched Trace Galager(?) turn his back to the camera, look up a TV monitor, and interview the guy there (in a different studio) over what looked like a 1996-era webcam, as *that* guy read the latest Tweets to Fox.

Riveting.

This crap drives me crazy. The low quality video feeds for no reason, the filming of TV screens in the studio instead of getting direct feeds, etc. I also hate all the user feedback at the end of each segment, I don't give a shit what Wanker5767 says about Iran on Tweeter.

 

[seemingly random]

Anybody remember cnn airing unedited footage from iraq before and during gulf war one? Remember bernard shaw broadcasting drunk from that hotel in tehran at the beginning of the first shock and awe? A lot of (established) people were upset with it and called it amateurish. Most people didn't know of cnn before this. I have no idea if the current environment is indicative of a sea change or not but there is precedent.