In our class discussion last week, we briefly talked about
the role of journalists in an era where everyone can “report” using social
media platforms. Is there a diminishing need for journalism as a specialized
institution? This topic is covered in the “Media Revolution and Public Debate”
where Charles Girard states, “Now that every individual can express himself
through a blog and read any message from his mobile phone, the argument goes,
there is no more need for journalists. Why bother reading what the newspapers
print about the Arab Spring when they merely reflect information exchanged on
Facebook?”
Through my internship, I organized a mass media event last
week hosted by the US-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission. I was able to
attend a Q&A with the social media editor of the Associated Press and
walked away with a few key points that I’d like to share concerning the themes
of the evolving practice and profession of journalism and new media
technologies that we covered in class.
User-generated content (UGC) now provides journalists access
to stories that they wouldn’t have been able to report on years ago. The editor
mentioned an example of the way Twitter allowed their journalists to get a
story and angle that AP otherwise wouldn’t have gotten. There was an accident
at a ski lift in Maine about two winters ago where the cars plummeted to the
ground. Dozens of people were hurt. Journalists found someone who had tweeted
that their cousin was involved in the accident. When questioned by reporters, the
first thing she said is that the snow was “nice and fluffy”. People didn’t end
up getting hurt; though that’s the direction the story could’ve gone in.
Russian journalists find that social media increases the
scale of reporting. One argued that he doesn’t believe any media outlet would
claim to be a leader in the field without employing UGC. It has now become an
integral part of editorial content.
Regardless, news organizations must be very cautious when
using UGC in their published material. There are some people who provide the
content and may ask for compensation, while others prefer to remain anonymous,
which suggests that their goal is to desperately get the material out there. AP
is always certain to verify the validity of the material and source. Social
media platforms make it much easier to see controversial content, and make it
much easier for that content to spread. Social media increases the likelihood
of misinformation, so news orgs need to take greater precautions. Concerning
sensitive or controversial material that causes uproar, anger and/or violence,
AP has a responsibility to report on those reactions.
When asked how social media has affected journalism, the
editor responded that
AP has had to develop guidelines for the use of social media
built upon their statements of values/principles. Similar to the way a reporter
would have to identify him/herself and provide his/her credentials in a
face-to-face or phone interview, a reporter must identify him/herself on their
social media account. Concerning the code of ethics against using anonymous
sources, AP believes that that code shouldn’t be rewritten to accommodate
social media. Instead, AP follows normal policies. They only use anonymous
content if it’s purely factual and not opinionated, but, most importantly, if
there was no other way AP could have attained that information.
AP developed their own wording/language so readers can
identify UGC as such. The wording also provides a window into AP’s process for
verifying the content’s credibility. This allows news organizations to be more
transparent, which he thinks is a positive thing.
Overall, journalists acknowledge that social media is
changing the way they report by providing access to real-world content. At the
same time, they realize that it remains their responsibility to “gather and
distribute the news while maintaining the highest journalistic standards.”
Kristie, I believe you have posed a good question as to if traditional journalism is still necessary now that we are in the age of social media. Nowadays, anyone with a smartphone can become a journalist. I think UGC should not be used as a source of news but as a mechanism, to present news to the attention of news organizations. For example a pep rally was held in Waverly, NY, where students dressed up in Blackface and reenacted Chris Brown beating Rihanna. This occurred in front of school officials, parents and students. However, the incident did not receive criticism until someone uploaded the event onto CNN's iReport. It has now making national news. UGC are doing relevant work by bringing everyday events to the national stage, but at the same time it's necessary to somehow make it explicit the role traditional journalism plays within our society.
ReplyDeleteVanessa, I agree with the point you raise about UGC's capacity to bring real-world events to the forefront of national news. I find the raw, unfiltered nature of UGC to be advantageous( and sometimes controversial), and with the help of social media platforms, it can easily be shared with others. Still, as the journalists cautioned, it allows room for so much misinformation which is very misleading. This highlights the relevance and significance of journalists today in mediating that content in an unbiased way (though that might be wishful thinking).
ReplyDeleteIn an increasingly participatory culture where more people are becoming ‘pro-sumers’, it is becoming gradually more difficult to differentiate biased and unbiased information, or true versus false information. Your discussion about presenting journalistic credentials on social media sites is very interesting. I think that such guidelines and regulation answers your initial question of whether or not we need journalism as a specialized field anymore. AP’s reaction to the increase in social media ‘reporting’ reinforces the fact that yes we do; journalists now need to be who we turn to for valid news and information, and to verify or check what we see spreading through social media.
ReplyDelete