On the day the Mumbai terrorist attacks were unfolding I was sitting at my desk at home, trawling through my RSS feeds. I was drinking some coffee and I was reading blog posts somewhat idly.
The first news of the events reached me via Twitter. Asteris was updating on what was going on and I started following #Mumbai as well.
The next morning I watched BBC News (as I do every day) and I just saw everything I had learned before via Twitter and Friendfeed.
Two days later I watched BBC News again and I got information that I had not gottern from Twitter or Friendfeed.
The difference is simple. While an event is developing, tools like Twitter are amazing to get you on the spot updates from people actually being in the midst of the action. Some of them are accurate some are not. Some of them are balanced and some are not. As a user of social media it is easy to judge for yourself, not to mention that with the influx of information, the reliable posters tend to come on top.
However, when the action stops and I need to follow the political and diplomatic developments, Twitter cannot help me. It possibly could if I knew whom to follow from the political scene in India and Pakistan but I don’t. Instead I got my news from BBC News and Sky News and The Guardian and The Times (of London, yes).
Here are some of the reasons why
- Twitter users are not ‘in the loop’ in the same way that news organisations are. This is arguably a failing of the political structure but the fact remains that journalists are invited to press conferences and official meetings.
- Journalists being there for years and specialising in the area (which is something at least the BBC does fantastically well) have all the contacts and the access to get to government – released information first.
- I needed substantiated comment and analysis – which I could not find Twitter in such short notice.
Point 3 requires a short explanation. They key here is trust. While I trust Twitter users to let me know how they see the world or if they heard an explosion, unless I have been following them for a long time I don’t trust them with analysis and opinion. In direct opposition, I trust the BBC with analysis and opinion (some people would disagree with me, but what the heck) but I know they could not have given me the immediate eyewitness account that Twitter gave me.
So there you have it. One tool will not save the world every single time.
Read On:
Mumbai Taught Me That Twitter is Here to Stay from The Intersection of Online and Offline
In Mumbai, witnesses are writing the news by Jeff Jarvis of PDA (The Guardian)
Tweeting the terror: How social media reacted to Mumbai by Stephanie Busari of CNN
Twitter – the Mumbai myths by Rory Cellan-Jones of dot.life (BBC)
Mumbai Attacks: Twitter Adds to the Noise but Is Still Valuable by Svetlana Gladkova of profy
Mumbai attack coverage demonstrates (good and bad) maturation point of social media by Jennifer Leggio of ZDNet
How Municipalities Should Integrate Social Media Into Disaster Planning from Web Strategy by Jeremiah
Hey Mark – no problem, thanks for passing by.
Sofia,
You make some very good points in your post – and thanks for linking to my blog.
Mark
I start to agree with you! even I have written something let's say opposite!
/g
Yep, saw your post and I do agree with your point. I too go to twitter for my breaking news. But I still think that old media have a role to play, especially when it comes to analysis.
analysis is the role will drive old media to future.
/g