What Constitutes News Now That Everyone Can Be a Reporter?

The intriguing question of what is news in the Internet age came up yesterday when Tony Katz used Twitter to report on a possible terrorist taken off a US Air flight Katz was on. The story has not made it to mainstream media.

Katz reported a minute by minute description of the potential bomb threat on his US Air flight in the 140 character "tweets" the popular micro-blogging platform allows. He explained how a man claiming to have a detonator in his pocket was removed from the plane by several police.

Katz said he thought he was just sharing an experience, moving news quickly without the content filters central to mainstream media, and he wondered "...are there needed, necessary and normalizing filters that we should be placing on ourselves when sharing?" It's a good question, with implications for corporate marketers.

The story didn't make the papers or the evening news. Tim Street reports the Twitter entries in a blog post. Certainly we have not become so inured to the potential of terrorism in our midst? With budget and time constraints, mainstream media can't even come close to covering everything that is news. And while millions still watch the evening news, for millions more, that's far from their only information source.

Social media lets us discuss events with others as thoroughly as we want to; to get as many eyewitness accounts as we can; to judge the viability of the information based on how well we know the source; and to make sure that the only news we hear isn't what's on the 11 o'clock report.

Katz' assessment of the way US Air handled the situation was wholly positive. What if he reported that they handled it badly? How fast would their mistakes have spread through the Internet?

Would US Air know how to get their side of the story out through the world of social networks like Twitter, Jaiku, Flickr, etc.? How should they go about telling their story through social media? The answers to questions like these are evolving with emerging media. Any corporation that isn't thinking about how to respond to a social media groundswell is a sitting duck for quick blow to their reputation. CMOs, CEOs: ignore little "time wasters" like Twitter, playground and news center of the new influencers, at your peril. Posted by B.L. Ochman

Thanks to Connie Reese for the screen shot

BL -

You bring up some great points about the power of social media and how foolish corporate America can be if they do not at least attempt to understand how these tools benefit them.

I do appreciate you covering the story. Aside from the social media aspect, it is important for all of us to be reminded of the need to stay vigilant and aware, as well as to recognize when people do the right thing and when well trained people handle themselves properly.

I look forward to reading more of your blog now and in the future. All the best.

Tony Katz
http://www.tonykatz.com

Great article. We suppose there is just too much news for the mainstream media heads to keep up with but it is quite interesting to see which kinds of stories they DO choose to nationally syndicate. We as social media users must keep an eye on things ourselves and not just rely on these corporate media folks... spreading WORTHY news along to our counterparts.

It's important for PR people to monitor what's being said about their companies online. And blogs seem to be an easier way to air discontent than letters to the editor.

Three obstacles face reporting in the social media, though:

1. Credibility: There's an automatic backing of news in newspapers and TV news -- you know there is some sort of system in place to correct errors, submit retractions, have lawyers to file law suits when governments violate the Freedom of Information Act. Wonder what the social media outlets use?
2. Trustworthiness. Is there a system in place for editors of social media to fact check? What happens if something is incorrect?
3. Information Overload. How do you get your news in the forefront of social media when there is a zillion other places to check? How do you stand out? Is it important to?

I guess the same applies with legal issues online -- you still can't make up stuff.

So, I'm interested in seeing how news will progress in social media.

Wendy - Thanks for this thoughtful comment. Here are my responses to the issues you raised and I hope others will join the conversation.

1. Yes, MSM has a system in place. So do blogs in that other bloggers and our readers are very quick to point out our mistakes and to offer another point of view.

Blogs gained prominence as mainstream media watchdogs. On several occasions blogs have uncovered a) errors and omissions of mainstream media. Blogs brought down a Congressman and a major mainstream journalist, for example;

b)first-hand reports, like Tony's that would be impossible to cover in any more traditional way.

Surely, bloggers sometimes make factual errors, intentionally or unintentionally. This brings up the issue that everyone is now responsible for checking their own sources. Few of us take mainstream media at its word these days on controversial issues.

We check several sources, including blogs, forums, social networks, to get a full picture of the news.

Information overload is certainly an issue. But it's part of our loves now and it's not going away. I am amazed at how many otherwise intelligent people are seriously uninterested in news these days because there is too much of it.

But that doesn't negate the impact bloggers have had on the newsgathering process.

Reporting from Twitter and other social media provides immediacy and personal engagement/feelings of the reporter. This is contrary to other types of media. The issue of credibility- it's understood by most, that any Internet sources can't be taken as Gospel.

On the other hand, social networking sites, have a built-in positive predisposition of the readers, by virtue of belonging to the same group. This could have the effect of news spreading faster, because they are communicated between "friends".

I agree blogs are useful and effective, hands down. The immediacy and personal engagement of the reporter is a refreshing change in media in general. I also agree with the watch-dog approach.

Still, there are hurdles one can not overlook: How can you clear yourself of bias when you're being a watchdog? My point is who is the blogs watchdog? Each other?

Still, blogs/online communicating will never have anywhere near the same amount of credibility of a news organization that has built-in reprcussions if the info isn't correct. Reporter could be fired or sued. With blogs, there's never a guarantee that someone is who she even says she is.

Can anyone recommend their top 5 or 10 blogs? In addition to BL's? :)

Wendy - how can you prove that MSM reporters do not bring their personal bias to the stories they report? That they don't seek out people to interview whose responses fit the writer's hypothesis on the topic?

And yes, bloggers absolutely do watch each other and call each other on errors and bias.

Bloggers also can be sued. Like you said in your first comment - you can just make stuff up. And, given the MSM reporters who've been fired from august publications including the NY Times, Washington Post, Newsweek and Time, you can't really be sure a MSM reporter is legitimate.

That's why, in the age of information glut, each of us is responsible for checking sources, validating stories, and not just swallowing while what ANYONE says, in mainstream or emerging media.