Do sites like twitter and facebook do a better job with breaking news? Possibly, only in that, if an eyewitness sees a plane crash and immediately updates their status on facebook seconds after the crash, well then, he broke the story, but that's it. There's no "who, why or how" to it. Maybe there's the answer to "where the incident occurred?" because he saw the event occur, and sure maybe he answered "what occurred?" simply by describing the event, but we all see things all the time,... that doesn't mean we always know the answers.
I think these sites are important to the news industry and to some degree helpful, but I still think news sites, AP bulletins and so forth do a better job reporting the story. But citizen journalism should not be discouraged. With the downfall/major reorganization of the news industry we're going to have to start relying and falling back on the everyday people. Because honestly, the news industry doesn't have the man power it once did. We can't be everywhere and anywhere. But people are everywhere and anywhere and if they see something amazing, terrifying, incredible happen, well, then, I'm glad they've taken it upon themselves to inform the rest of us.
My advice is don't discourage news via social sites, but always skim with skepticism when the poster starts explaining things he didn't see or when he starts assuming and drawing conclusions from thin air. Just look on, but look carefully.
No comments:
Post a Comment