"Two weeks ago, I wrote here about how the ‘real time web’ is turning all of us into inhuman egotists. "
Amen, it doesn't matter if you are a top-level celebrity or happen to be at the location of a major incident , i don't want to know your opinion of anything and no anyone with camera and a twitter account doesn't a journalist make.
Yes, the news does, in fact, look different when not subjected to $50k of pre-planning and post-production per clip. If you find this surprising or dismaying, the problem lies in you, not in the news.
The news looks significantly different when it's not subject to basic fact checking and the people reporting don't even pretend to adhere to journalistic ethics.
No basic fact checking? That sounds just like the regular news; just ask Rush Limbaugh (victim of a fake quote, which the media just accepted without fact checking).
Are random clips of video without context or background even news? That's the real question. That pre-planing and post-production can greatly aid in putting the clip in the necessary context and to make sure that it actually illustrates what it claims to illustrate.
Can production be abused, of course, but the answer is not to remove production from news. Misleading reporting isn't OK just because it's done by a guy with a phone and twitter account, and "everybody else does it" is not an excuse.
Sorry, but I think this is complete bullshit. If millions of people talk about stuff publicly, some are bound to produce nonsense or bad stuff. Getting worked up about that is equivalent to reporting about the proverbial falling sack of rice in China.
As for the army case, I suppose that person acted against the rules of the military (just guessing) and will probably be dealt with accordingly.
As for the dying kid: a professional journalist would have done the same thing, unfortunately. (I did not watch the video, though).
As for cell phones in hospitals: I tend to think that is an urban myth. That expensive machinery is so fragile that it can be shot down by some microwaves from a mobile phone? Very unlikely - more likely there are other reasons for banning phones, perhaps psychological ones.
As with "professional media", some people will manage to get a reputation for fact checking and whatnot, and smart people will stick to those sources for their news. There are also "professional" magazines about UFOs and stuff.
I enjoyed the This American Life clip, even though I've watched it before. However, I feel it somewhat undermines his thesis that in my school, if there was a fight in the playground it would not be unusual for the bystanders to spit on the pair scuffling on the ground. People can be dicks, with or without video technology being involved.
While I think he has a point worth making, it seems hurried under volumes of copius douchebaggery.
To give just one example, his trivialization of the role of social media in Iran in service of making his own point.
And frankly, "pro" journalists often bring many of the same failings. The report,rather than compromising their objectivity by actually helping, they get things wrong when news is unfolding. They are driven by ego and seduced by power. But really, the failings of pro journalism aren't news, and at this point, nor are the failings of bloggers, so here we are, rehashing the same damn story, applying the same damn narrative, only this time, it's a blogger lookin down his nose at a Tweeter.
What's is Mr. Carr's point? That people who report the news are sometimes doing it for the sake of their own aggrandizement rather than pure altruism? Then why is there a byline link on your post, Mr. Carr? Why do you draw a salary as a journalist?
Is this something new? I remember CNN journalists covering Katrina visibly preening themselves as they got more and more worked up about what a tragedy it was, and what good work they were doing by reporting it. The anchors who kicked off the 9/11 reporting knew that not only were they covering a world-changing event, but a career-changing one for them. To be a journalist is to have this conflict of interest.
The fact that it happens on Twitter and other social media too, when the journalists are amateurs, is completely and utterly irrelevant. What happens in real life happens online too. It seems this keeps taking journalists by surprise, who then report it as if it's a breakthrough. Shopping - online! Dating - online! Child molestation - online! Bullying - online! Support groups - online!
But of course my posting this is obviously fatally compromised because, as Mr. Carr knows, I'm really only doing it so you guys will vote it up and increase my karma. I guess all my points are invalid! Oh well.
Actually this article does more to make professional journalism look bad than citizen journalism. No one proposes that citizen journalism = reading the raw feed of info from individuals. Citizen journalism = raw feed + filters and aggregators.
Either Carr doesn't understand that, which makes him look dumb, or he does and is pretending not to in order to generate controversy on what would otherwise be a slow news day, which makes him look dishonest. Either way, his example contradicts his implicit claim that professional journalism is better.
If I had to guess, I'd bet on the latter: that this is a deliberate attempt to manufacture controversy to generate page views. And since this is a fluff post, I'm going to kill it. See, the new model doesn't work so badly after all.
I agree with the premise that 'citizen journalism' isn't the dagger to the heart of the news media that some make it out to be; that said, maybe PC should've let this particular article marinate for a while longer. It's difficult to get past the blind (and in some cases, obviously egotistical) hatred and see his real point.
For those interested, there's a great article by David Simon in the WaPo from a while back that makes much the same point without the vitriol. In particular, this line leapt to mind:
"[In the context of investigating corruption in the Baltimore PD] Well, sorry, but I didn't trip over any blogger trying to find out McKissick's identity and performance history. Nor were any citizen journalists at the City Council hearing in January when police officials inflated the nature and severity of the threats against officers. And there wasn't anyone working sources in the police department to counterbalance all of the spin or omission."
I think the OP is making a deeper point but the article 'pretends' to be about citizen journalists' incompetence.
It seems his deeper point, which he could've made more clearly, is about the insensitivity and stupidity of the assholes behind the camera and how twitter and other social media has made it easier for this kind of behavior to happen.
16 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 44.8 ms ] threadAmen, it doesn't matter if you are a top-level celebrity or happen to be at the location of a major incident , i don't want to know your opinion of anything and no anyone with camera and a twitter account doesn't a journalist make.
Can production be abused, of course, but the answer is not to remove production from news. Misleading reporting isn't OK just because it's done by a guy with a phone and twitter account, and "everybody else does it" is not an excuse.
As for the army case, I suppose that person acted against the rules of the military (just guessing) and will probably be dealt with accordingly.
As for the dying kid: a professional journalist would have done the same thing, unfortunately. (I did not watch the video, though).
As for cell phones in hospitals: I tend to think that is an urban myth. That expensive machinery is so fragile that it can be shot down by some microwaves from a mobile phone? Very unlikely - more likely there are other reasons for banning phones, perhaps psychological ones.
As with "professional media", some people will manage to get a reputation for fact checking and whatnot, and smart people will stick to those sources for their news. There are also "professional" magazines about UFOs and stuff.
To give just one example, his trivialization of the role of social media in Iran in service of making his own point.
And frankly, "pro" journalists often bring many of the same failings. The report,rather than compromising their objectivity by actually helping, they get things wrong when news is unfolding. They are driven by ego and seduced by power. But really, the failings of pro journalism aren't news, and at this point, nor are the failings of bloggers, so here we are, rehashing the same damn story, applying the same damn narrative, only this time, it's a blogger lookin down his nose at a Tweeter.
What's is Mr. Carr's point? That people who report the news are sometimes doing it for the sake of their own aggrandizement rather than pure altruism? Then why is there a byline link on your post, Mr. Carr? Why do you draw a salary as a journalist?
Is this something new? I remember CNN journalists covering Katrina visibly preening themselves as they got more and more worked up about what a tragedy it was, and what good work they were doing by reporting it. The anchors who kicked off the 9/11 reporting knew that not only were they covering a world-changing event, but a career-changing one for them. To be a journalist is to have this conflict of interest.
The fact that it happens on Twitter and other social media too, when the journalists are amateurs, is completely and utterly irrelevant. What happens in real life happens online too. It seems this keeps taking journalists by surprise, who then report it as if it's a breakthrough. Shopping - online! Dating - online! Child molestation - online! Bullying - online! Support groups - online!
But of course my posting this is obviously fatally compromised because, as Mr. Carr knows, I'm really only doing it so you guys will vote it up and increase my karma. I guess all my points are invalid! Oh well.
Either Carr doesn't understand that, which makes him look dumb, or he does and is pretending not to in order to generate controversy on what would otherwise be a slow news day, which makes him look dishonest. Either way, his example contradicts his implicit claim that professional journalism is better.
If I had to guess, I'd bet on the latter: that this is a deliberate attempt to manufacture controversy to generate page views. And since this is a fluff post, I'm going to kill it. See, the new model doesn't work so badly after all.
For those interested, there's a great article by David Simon in the WaPo from a while back that makes much the same point without the vitriol. In particular, this line leapt to mind:
"[In the context of investigating corruption in the Baltimore PD] Well, sorry, but I didn't trip over any blogger trying to find out McKissick's identity and performance history. Nor were any citizen journalists at the City Council hearing in January when police officials inflated the nature and severity of the threats against officers. And there wasn't anyone working sources in the police department to counterbalance all of the spin or omission."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02...
It seems his deeper point, which he could've made more clearly, is about the insensitivity and stupidity of the assholes behind the camera and how twitter and other social media has made it easier for this kind of behavior to happen.