Sorry, Interactive-Media Professors
CNN.com posted an article on the Obama-McCain debate just nine minutes after the two candidates shook hands. NPR clocked in at twenty minutes. Dinosaurs compared to CUNY J-school twitters (or is it tweeters?) and New York Times bloggers who had published their reactions, predictions, analyses, and reports, before moderator Bob Schieffer had even introduced the second topic. While many see this as democracy-in-action, I see it as somewhat irresponsible.
To me, instant journalism is sort of like running on a treadmill while eating a sandwich (stay with me). The meal hasn’t even been digested, and if nothing else, the sandwich will certainly distract from the act of running (or vice-versa, but either way the end result is sure to be messy).
Don’t get me wrong; I know that deadlines and timeliness are the essence of journalism, which is fine. But there’s a difference between getting a story out by the next morning’s paper and getting the story out before the event is even done. The latter overwhelms me. Not just as a journalist anticipating a career that might obligate me to do some live blogging and desperate praying that no one finds this post. But also as a consumer of media. Misinformation is one of the largest problems with breaking news.
The most famous example may be 9/11 when reports were changing with each hour that passed. “Accident” became “potential terrorist attack in New York,” which then became a “confirmed attack on the United States.” And under those circumstances, not only is that completely fine, that’s completely necessary. But not everything is breaking news. Not everything needs to be dished out to the public on a minute-by-minute basis, particularly when it involves analysis and opinion. There’s a danger in that. New information gives new meaning and context to something old.
NPR and CNN know that. They each posted articles within the first half hour of the debate entitled “Economy Takes Center Stage in FInal Debate,” and “McCain, Obama Debate their Tax Plans,” respectively. Now, at 12:55am, I am unable to find these articles on their websites. It seems they updated the articles, and retitled them after apparently realizing that their original ways of conceiving the debate were inaccurate.
I remember learning, in elementary school, about a Native American culture that didn’t speak unless there was something essential to say. There was no small talk, no blabbering, no thinking out-loud. Just silence, until there was something well thought out and meaningful to say. I think there’s something to that.
October 16th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Right on,
I totally understand forming a story as it’s breaking. Information changes depending on which person makes their information available.
But there needs to be some analysis. 9 minutes in is way too soon. Everyone need more time to think about their well rehearsed and at time vague, rhetoric.
And for the record, I’ve never been able to master the whole treadmill/sandwich thing…like you said, it just gets messy
October 16th, 2008 at 5:56 am
You know I agree. Personally I can’t handle watching TV and checking my email at the same time. I’m not really sure how you can write an article yet still really keep up with the debate as it happens…something has got to give.
October 16th, 2008 at 6:04 am
Emily, I noticed the post-debate reaction times, too. And they also bothered me for the reasons you mention above.
By delivering reaction seconds later, are the media and technology socializing the public to expect post-whatever reaction in under 5 min? Why is that desirable? (unless you’re a really weird guy who never leaves his house)
I’m with you… just because you can do something doesn’t mean you do it. But maybe in the grand scheme of things, we’re still in the ‘trying it out’ phase. The 24 hour news cycle is still relatively new (about 30 yrs?) after all.
I dunno. Looking back at my live-blogging experiment last night, I’d cut like, 800 more words. Who wants to hear my running commentary of the presidential debate? And if you’re writing while you’re listening, how’re you truly listening? At least, that was my concern. I couldn’t possibly be listening all that well.
October 16th, 2008 at 6:48 am
This is the beginning of a great conversation!
I’d love to also hear your thoughts on the possible opportunities these new tools provide. We might be able to identify specific types of messages that can leverage the immediacy and accessibility of live-blogs and Twitter.
For example, live fact-checking could be a wonderful way to temper a speaker’s message before it gets picked up by larger media outlets. Tweeting as a group, as we did last night, could also be a sort of virtual “pitch-meeting” that involves people sitting in at home, as well as those at school. And, as I overheard Drew suggest last night, “tweeting” an event can be like publishing a live reporter’s notebook that solicits the input of others in the crowd who are also “listening” to the conversation.
What might be some other beneficial uses of Twitter and blogs?
-Derek
To subscribe to group messages for CUNY Journalism students, go to
http://twitter.com/tweetthepress
October 16th, 2008 at 7:40 am
I agree with you 100%. I think at some point, people get carried away with immediacy and sacrifice accuracy for it. There’s a quote in the front of our school by Ellen Goodman that captures this sentiment: “In journalism, there has always been a tension between getting it first and getting it right.” Plus, it was really hard to follow the debate when every few seconds my computer pinged with the Tweet comments some class members had. Not that they weren’t valuable comments, but I feel they detracted from the debate as a whole.
October 16th, 2008 at 8:42 am
I think Jere Hester showed how Twittering can be used effectively to add context and background to a live event like the debate. Go back and take a moment to read his Tweets.
Emily, I think you’re absolutely right about not speaking unless you have something valuable to say. Breaking news is just one part of the equation.
This is what we as journalists need to figure out. How can we use these tools to tell enriched stories?
I think there is value in being connected to your audience in real-time. You can ask them questions, they can ask you questions and they can point you to potential sources.
Take a look TV reporter Jason DeRusha’s Twitter page. He has more than 600 followers (a.k.a potential sources).
October 16th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Ah, I’m guilty of getting carried away with the tweets. As a first-time Twitter user, I think I had very little idea what the heck I was doing!
Thanks for this piece, Emily. Especially thanks for the reference to the specific Native American tribe and elementary school memories in general. Very calming.
October 16th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Derek-I do like your idea of live fact checking, but I envision the fact checks rolling across the bottom of the screen where the larger public can read them without really looking away from the debate.
My assumption is (here goes) that those using twitter are those who are educated and aware enough in the first place to consider the possibilities of inaccuracies. We can’t forget the population of voting Americans who believe things simply because they were stated on T.V.
These folks would not be the ones to hop on Twitter to fact check. I do like the idea–love the idea of live fact checking, but don’t know if Twitter would be the best forum for it.
On the other hand, Drew, if you have a base of 600 followers, I agree that there could be value in hearing from the public in real-time.
I’m keeping an open mind. I think this can be beneficial. Maybe like Carla suggested, we’re in a “trying-out phase” and we’re still trying to find the right fit.