Photo courtesy of sskennel.
Far beyond the original "What are you doing?" prompt, individuals are using Twitter to share and find breaking news before it's available from sources like CNN, the New York Times, or the local news. From the riots around the Iran election to the Hudson River crash, Twitter has become a go-to source in breaking stories around the world. Sometimes, as with the Haiti earthquake, victims and witnesses use social media to find help. And in reporting situations like the Iran election protests, which were inaccessible to traditional news media, Twitter was not just the fastest source of information for people in and outside Iran, it was the only source. Most recently, Twitter was the leading source of information when a gunman took hostages in the Discovery building in Silver Spring, Maryland. Before information became available anywhere else, people began tweeting updates and photos from inside the building and neighboring offices.
As the use of Twitter has become more widespread (now with more than 100 million users), so has our trust in the information coming from the site. Even mainstream news outlets now routinely pull information from Twitter, sometimes without fully checking facts and sources - a point that both sports reporter Mike Wise and political columnist Chris Cilliza have made in the last few weeks (albeit in different ways). The citizen journalism enabled by Twitter is undoubtedly popular because access to information has never been faster. It provides nearly instantaneous updates, and when we're holding our breath through crisis situations, our chief priority is quick access to information.
But some of the drawbacks of this instant and easily spread information leaves some wondering whether this is a good thing. Besides the time it takes to mobilize a news crew, traditional reports are typically delayed because of fact checking. Having reputations built on delivering not only fast, but accurate news, they are expected to make certain their information is correct. The expectations of the average person with a smartphone in the midst of an emergency are understandably not so high. In the case of the Discovery attack, one witness took a Twitpic of a man with a gun and identified him as the suspect. With more than 100 retweets, the photo spread like wildfire, but it later became clear that the man was actually a member of the police force dressed in plain clothes. But as many regretful Twitter users know, once you push "tweet" it's not always possible to pull that information back.
In addition to the spread of misinformation, this Twitter journalism has the potential to make a situation like the one at Discovery worse. If information about a SWAT team movement or delicate hostage negotiation is available - or even suggested - on the web, it's possible that suspects could gain access to that information as well and use it to their advantage. Such information might also cause panic, which could lead some to put themselves in harm's way before authorities can conduct an evacuation or a rescue operation. This trend in Twitter reporting creates a clash between a tightly-held right to know and share information that is becoming more and more a part of our culture and the need for accountability in sharing accurate and responsible information. And with the nature of Twitter, there may not be any way to expect or enforce standards for credible information the way we do with professional news media. Social media is certainly changing the way we find information by enabling millions of citizen reporters, but is that always a good thing?
Are the potential risks of spreading Twitter information about crisis situations worth the access to the information? Do you want the quickest access to information even if some of the details turn out to be inaccurate?
Share