Bloggertone » Technology » Journalists’ experiment to show how we see the world through the Twitter and Facebook lenses

Journalists’ experiment to show how we see the world through the Twitter and Facebook lenses

by Sabina Piter on January 28th, 2010 | Comments

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (8 votes, average: 4.88 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

As part of a journalistic experiment called “Behind closed doors on the net” – due commence on February,1 – five journalists will be based for five days in an isolated French cottage and try to generate news with their only source of information being Twitter and Facebook, with no access to TV, radio, print media or smartphones.

The declared purpose of the unusual experiment is to determine whether news generated solely from these two sources could be as reliable as traditional media.news

I’m not one to believe that news can be generated and written solely based on Twitter and Facebook updates simply because there’s so much going on there and so much incorrect information that it’s easy for the lines between reality and rumours to get blurred. In some instances users must be ruthless with the information even when they have access to links and other resources, online and offline and try to determine the accuracy of a piece of news.

For instance, the title of a Mashable post I received on my Facebook wall read: “Could These Be Pictures of the Real Apple Tablet? [PICS]”. For those interested in the subject, this is bound to spark some interest. The blog post, which shows a few images of, presumably, the new Apple Tablet – initially reported to be launched today – also generated a lively debate between readers who bring arguments for and against the reliability of this information.

Now imagine that you’re not able to click on the link to read the post, check the accuracy of the information using different venues and write a piece of news based only on the information on your wall and the comments of Facebook users (which are sometimes off-topic as well)!

That said, this will definitely be an interesting experiment to follow, at least to see what it would be like to only have news generated by these networks and maybe, just maybe, we’ll get a glimpse of which one of these two is better at delivering “real” news.

Their success in sourcing great news it’s also going to be very much dependent on the reputation or image the journalists in the sociosphere. Twitter and Facebook are both based around communities and people who share their thoughts, experiences and knowledge with one another. This sharing encourages trust among users and whether or not the journalists have built those relationships will also determine the success of their endeavour.

My money is on the fact that this experiment will show us what we already knew about the relationship between journalism and social media, namely that social media tools are simply that – tools, just like the journalists’ sources or their voice recorder. Journalism, by definition, is a complex system of various sources and, in writing a qualified and compelling piece of news, one source will never be enough.

I’d love to know what your view on this subject is! So please, engage in conversation!

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (8 votes, average: 4.88 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Category: social media

Tags: , , , , , ,

The Author: Sabina Piter

http://www.click2engage.com/

Read more and connect »

Add Your Comment

  • LewisEvans
    Big subject! When we are deciding what to believe, the popular route is to seek out believable sources. So reputation is always a key factor. However, even reputable reporters (Joe Bloggs as well as Journalist of the Year) are drawing information from sources that themselves can be tainted and are sometimes straight hoaxes, as I discovered the other day on Twitter regarding an aspect of the Haiti situation. Equally, the influencers are often engaged in manipulation, so the 'truth' can be a total fiction that is believed by millions. I think we've seen plenty of that - remember WMDs etc... So, whoever is spreading the news, and whether they are using jouralistic channels or social media tools, can make it as 'reliable' or otherwise as they like. Social media tools simply help bolster their reputation (when they use it wisely) and extend their reach. We all crave honest reporting, but I don't know how anyone can decide how that is possible, let alone deliver it. What do you think?
  • This truly is a topic that hardly lends itself to an exhaustive discussion. And this is probably because the opinions each and every one of us have on this are inevitably either convergent or divergent, but more than likely subjective. This is also the word that describes news delivered/generated though social media tools. It's been said that if you want to run a search on sentiment you should go on Twitter and if it's facts you're looking for do a search on Google. If we were to use this as our starting point we could say that honest reporting does exist, it’s just dependent on the perception of the person delivering it (this assuming that the news is not an absolute invention). And under these circumstances, the issue is whether or not anyone, be it a Twitter user or a journalist can truly be objective? Can someone really detach themselves from a situation and not put their own fingerprint on it? Or, perhaps, part of the beauty of reporting lies in this added perspective to which we can all contribute?
  • LewisEvans
    Sabina, I think this is a discussion that could fill up bloggertone's available space! So many angles to talk about here. To be horribly pedantic about it, for instance: if we propose that honest reporting exists under the terms you mention, surely we'd have to take into account that our (more than likey) subjective opinions based on our perceptions drawn from our own experiences, exposure, prejudices and outlandish ideas around something that could also be a deliberate fiction, are all that we have to establish 'honesty'. Seems a bit thin to me, and it kind of diminishes the value of the word. I guess that's why Murdoch chose beautiful reporting, as he spent less time agonising over that question and more time exploiting the added perspective!

    What do you think?

    :0)
  • I agree! It does diminish the value of the word. In the world of social media “citizen journalists” are not bound by the principles of journalism to report facts, not opinions, to verify facts and be transparent with regards to sources etc. Traditional journalism relies on an objective method to try and convey a fair, reliable and accurate account of their reporting, however that’s not to say that the journalists themselves are objective. And even if this is the foundation, any journalistic account is still open to further investigation, interpretation, criticism and debate. In a world where there are so many sources of information readers will pick and choose the news based on their interests and with so many sources to choose from each one will be treated with skepticism. And because of this, no matter how transparent and accurate they try to be media consumers will still believe an account is biased. Now, I’m obviously not a journalist and don’t assume to know the process in depth, but this is where I think this experiment will have the greatest challenge: whether a journalist can truly verify the accuracy and reliability of a source of information on Facebook and Twitter alone and deliver quality news.
  • LewisEvans
    Another thought. I am reading one of John Simpson's books at the moment - you know, the BBC journalist. Here is a man with a vast knowledge of conflicts and politics around the world, who has, for over 40 years, placed himself in the centre of the action, often at great personal risk. Reading his book, it is clear that his personal take on things, which he is free to write in his own book, is very much more believable than the illusions and confusions weaved by the worlds press publicly. It's a great pity, as here is a very humane, sincere and honest person who is contractually bound to tow the line and whose reports are massaged by others before they reach us - if they are chosen to be aired at all. So, even if he is on Twitter or Facebook, he cannot risk telling it how it is, even though he is better qualified than most in certain situations, and able to see round the spin and manipulation.
  • Hi Sabina, welcome to Bloggertone, It's great to have you on board :) This sounds like a really interesting experiment. I think Twitter has already been shown to be a useful and indeed reliable source of news during the aftermath of the Iranian elections. Questions that now remain are will the public invariably break and report the news going forward? and Is this a good or indeed a bad thing? In other words, will Joe Bloggs become the Journalist of the future? Thanks for raising some great questions, Niall
  • Thank for having me here, Niall! :)
    These are some very good questions indeed! I think we've only just scratched the surface of user involvement when it comes to social media. The possibilities are endless now that every individual with Internet access can, in fact, be a journalist. Social media has opened the door and there's obviously no shortage of people who want in! On the one hand this could be a great thing as users can truly be active in the process value co-creation, on the other hand it's impossible not to question how distorted will some of the information be?
  • Great post Sabina! welcome to Bloggertone :)
    Social media is indeed just a set of tools. Twitter and Facebook in this case are simply the evolution of communication utensils that journalists and other professionals use... The experiment is creative but not a big deal.
  • Thank you, Fred! It feels great to be here! :)
    There has been a lot of noise lately around the impact of social media tools on the future of journalism and there's certainly going to be more excitement now, after the launch of the Apple tablet, with regards to the issue of print versus digital. It is a case of , as you well pointed out, an evolution of communication and what I hope is that it will encourage innovation of the traditional media, in order for this evolution to be passed on to the end consumer of media.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Related Posts


«
»