In the last lecture of this term’s Online course, BBC technology correspondent Rory Cellan Jones – a serial blogger here – expounded his faith in Twitter and his conviction that the Mumbai attacks of 26th November had been Twitter’s big moment. Gaurav Mishra – a world renowned twitexpert – has been instrumental in bringing the micro blogging site to the world’s attention, citing it as “the best source for real time citizen news on the Mumbai terrorist attacks” as the events were unfolding.
With jammed mobile phone networks and a hostile environment where journalists had good reason to fear being targetted, Twitter emerged as an indispensible source of information, with even the BBC “blindly” – in Mishra’s words – quoting tweets on their news feed. CNN even suggested its viewers subscribe to Twitter streams that offered information about how to stay safe and how to contact loved ones in danger.
As things died down, newspapers and websites continued to gush on Twitter’s big moment and its ability to provide an avalanche of real-time information as the world looked on in fear. But if twitter is a ‘real time’ tool, surely analysing it in retrospect has its own limitations? Misinformed tweets – that some critics suggest may have exacerbated the hysteria and confusion – can be easily amended or deleted.
By relying too much on Twitter, the BBC and CNN may have compromised the public’s trust by failing to demarkate the boundaries of rumour and truth. One twitoskeptic – Thomas Sutcliffe writing in the Independent – has identified the core problem of passing tweeters off as journalists:
Twitterers are hair-trigger communicators, and presumably absolutely itching to get something of substance into their despatches. Whereas a journalist has a reasonably strong incentive not to broadcast misleading or dubious information, because such an eventuality would come with a professional cost, a Twitterer owes no duty except to their own impressions and their own state of mind.
The question of a Tweeter’s motivation – and the motivation of any user publishing information – goes to the very heart of the UGC debate.
I’d like to respond to Dan Thornton’s comment posted below:
A Twitterer does have a strong incentive not to broadcast misleading information, because they’ve built up a network relying on trust rather than the brand on their masthead, and therefore dubious information damages them far more than a journalist who can hide behind their title!
There should be an indication of sources, but at the same time, I’ve found Twitter a far more reliable and faster way to obtain news by building a network of people that are trustworthy, beating the news networks on many occasions, and far quicker to respond when errors are brought to light.
I’m afraid I can’t agree that a ‘Twitterer’ puts more at stake than a journalist publishing misleading information. There is no mechanism to stop troublemakers creating multiple accounts, nor to verify that they are indeed who they claim to be. Like all other elements of UGC, Twitter is susceptible to polemics and biased accounts.
1 Comment
December 18, 2008 at 1:19 am
Sadly, I’m guessing Thomas hasn’t used Twitter, bearing in mind his thoughts begin with suggesting the name isn’t reassuring in a news sense.
A Twitterer does have a strong incentive not to broadcast misleading information, because they’ve built up a network relying on trust rather than the brand on their masthead, and therefore dubious information damages them far more than a journalist who can hide behind their title!
There should be an indication of sources, but at the same time, I’ve found Twitter a far more reliable and faster way to obtain news by building a network of people that are trustworthy, beating the news networks on many occasions, and far quicker to respond when errors are brought to light.