Yesterday the internet was a buzz about the apparent death of legendary Canadian singer Gordon Lightfoot. These reports began on Twitter yesterday afternoon and quickly spread across the site. The speculation became so much that CanWest News picked up the story and reported it on several of their news sites. Once picked up by a “legitimate” news source, the reports began to spread rapidly.
However, Gordon Lightfoot was alive and well, on his way to the dentist office, when he heard a report on the radio that he was dead. The original reports are now being called a prank. This is not the first time that celebrities have been falsely reported as dead on Twitter. While Twitter has proven an impressive force in instantaneously spreading information across the globe, what is the affect it can have on the false information that gets picked up? While news sites have an obligation to retract stories, and will probably delete the original report (whether out of accuracy or embarrassment), Twitter users do not have that obligation and Twitter is much harder to control.
Now, it is not confirmed that it strictly was a Tweet that CanWest went off of in their reporting of Lightfoot’s death, but wouldn’t it be standard procedure for a journalist to contact a representative for Lightfoot to find out from the source? As we have discussed in class, there is a debate about the idea of blogs being journalism. While this story shows the lack of accountability that can be present on the internet, how much credibility can journalism give itself when it relies on random internet sources? Are journalists acting any differently than those who post online?
Farewell, but not Goodbye!
14 years ago
Great post! I think you raise a really interesting issue. It is an issue that is plaguing journalism today and forcing professionals to overlook some of the very ideals their line of work was founded upon.
ReplyDeleteWhile journalists surely strive to always have accurate information, today the pressure to be the first to break a story is unimaginable.
Social media sites – like Twitter, only fuel this obsession to be first.
As a result, we see media organizations taking risks – broadcasting stories that have not yet been verified, so that they do not lose out on being the first to break the story.
There is obviously a fine line between being first and the confirmation of a story’s validity.
In the future, I believe we will only see this boundary continually being breached as media corporations continue to put pressure on journalists to deliver the information first.
As for credibility in the blogosphere or twittersphere, I believe that it can be there. Blogs and Twitter have been credited with breaking big news stories in the past; however, this doesn’t mean that all of information on these social media sites is accurate.
Let’s hope this latest embarrassing incident serves as a reminder for journalistic institutions that confirming the factualness of any breaking news story with sources is always a good call.
I first heard about this fake death on Facebook. When I logged on yesterday, a friend of mine's status was "nevermind, he's ver much alive". So I went to his profile to see what he was referring to and his status earlier that day was "Gordon Lightfoot has died".
ReplyDeleteMass media news organizations seem to be lowering their standards in cases like these. Like you said, they are scared about being left behind, but this sometimes results in information that is not verified. As Rebecca Blood mentioned in one of her blogs, citizen media and public broadcasting media are two different spheres that should be held to different standards. Blogging and twittering need not be held to the professional standards of journalism, nor should journalism change its focus to match that of citizen media.
i agree with both you and "blogophobe" this is a really ineresting issue that is being addressed a lot more; as it should be. Its sad that the mass media is suffering because of its focus on the entertainment industry. There is this frantic need to be the first to air a story and because of this there is obviously less research being done by certain journalists. Twitter and facebook are not credible sources but once a few people get a hold of something and start spreading it around the internet its not long before it becomes viral and a topic of discussion everywhere with people wanting the inside scoop and people are "telling all their friends". I think its another example of "infotainment" which is something we talk a lot about in communications.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Aprendiza: blogs and social networking sites need to have different standards. People shouldn't take what they read on these sites as credible information and if we cant trust our major news outlets to actually take the time to research their stories and make sure they report on events with thorough knowledge what information can we trust?