| ||||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSWhen the reporter called his editor and described this scenario, he was told bluntly to return to the office. The editor refused to cover the stunt in the paper. Back then, this preemptive block had an impact, and news coverage of the protest was instantly watered down.
It is interesting to consider the implied journalistic ethical question: If a news event is contrived, should the media cover it? But guess what? In the age of social media and citizen journalism, for many events, especially on a local stage, this question really doesn't matter. The community takes care of it -- for better or for worse.
Think about the Town Hall Meetings on the Obama administration's proposals for healthcare policy reform, now taking place nationwide. Amid suspicions that the protests raging coast to coast at these meetings are orchestrated by conservative interest groups, event organizers are well aware that every meeting is a You Tube campaign busting at the seams, ready to rip. Whether sanctioned news organizations cover the episodes or not, no matter the level of truth to the staging -- the story can and will propagate within social media.
This reality can be leveraged with fear as its currency. Whether we believe the level of cahoots and bullying or not -- the power shift of those making coverage happen is fascinating. An official position on whether news organizations should cover these events is almost moot. Airtime will happen at the hand of citizens.
My mind goes to other illustrations of these shifting tides:
Some of these trends are important and liberating. Some of them are disturbing and kind of sad. But one thing is certain: The gateway to coverage is no longer the exclusive watch of sanctioned news organizations. While philosophic statements can be made on the validity of a news event by seeing whether or not a news organization opts to cover it -- increasingly, such stand-offs are only symbolic. If the social sphere wants something covered, it will be covered.
This phenomenon says nothing of quality, accuracy and value standards. We can debate whether citizen journalism coverage is more or less potent than that of the big dogs -- but there's no doubt that coverage itself has been totally redefined in this age of social media.
55 people recommend this article.
RSS FEEDS
A question I raise in a recent blog post ( http://blogs.dix-eaton.com/index.php/mediainnerview/ )is what creates this whisper, or roar? And must PR professionals respond to them all?
He manipulated the coverage more than TV did.
The "community" didn't cover it. They changed their ways so MSM would continue to show up.
The "community" reaches only themselves or people that think like them. To have real impact requires a very large soapbox.
A soapbox that will reach those outside of like-minded thinkers.
No large soapbox has emerged without the heavy lifting being done by MSM.
cheers, Graeme www.twitter.com/graemethickins
I am more inclined to read a friend's review of a restaurant on Facebook (or his views on Sports, or TV, or Politics) and accept them for what they are - opinion from a valued source. I am less inclined to read a paper and accept the same from a self-appointed "expert" pundit. Why? Because I don't know them, I don't know their agenda, I don't know much beyond what they've written.
It's very hard to simply slough off new social media commentary as inaccurate or amateurish. It's from the heart, and it's got credibility because we usually know the source. As a result, a restaurant owner who recognizes a food critic and serves him the best meal and gets 4 stars suddenly has to realize everyone in his restaurant is a critic - and has to provide the very best service to each one, as opposed to only one. And politicians have to start taking their opposition seriously, rather than simply calling them dim-witted or out of touch. More likely, they are very much in touch and have as much an agenda as the politician (who, by their very nature as public servants are NOT supposed to have an agenda). Athletes have to be concerned about their image to a far greater degree. Walking past fans while in a huff, or with an abrasive edge and snappy comment will undoubtedly wind up on Facebook or Twitter. This is not how they are going to want their fans to know them. Better to take the extra moment to be caring, sign the extra autograph and then politely excuse oneself.
I see new social media as liberating, in a sense. It should keep us all on our toes.
What's clearly happening is that "social media" is becoming a term that's been broadened to an extent rendering it practically meaningless. Everything on the Web that isn't a formally sanctioned news source is now part of it: the blogosphere, e-mail, twitter, SMS, Facebook etc.
As you correctly point out, this latter realms suffers from extreme levels of contamination. Subjectivity is its main value and its main organizing form is that of the rapid-moving mob. There is no question in my mind that once the novelty of this chaotic media mess fades away, we'll be back in the world we inhabitated back in the 20th Century, where the powerful have 50KW broadcasting stations, and the powerless have CB radios, shortwave towers, and mimeograph machines.