Were the reports unclear, figures exaggerated, and confusion spread? Yes, most certainly. Would the Mumbai authorities have been able to do a better job in the absence of Twitter? I think not. As more reports emerge from India, it is clear that the institutions there were entirely unprepared to deal with an attack. Don't blame Twitter for any inadequacies.
As the attacks progressed, Twitter activity on the subject jumped sharply, but so did news reports and other traditional forms of communication. The only difference was that the accounts were less substantiated and unmediated. It's not as though everyone posting tweets to Twitter were eye-witnesses; most were passing on news already made public, discrediting claims that tweets may have aided the terrorists. What eyewitness accounts were provided were raw and mingled amongst faux-reports, but isn't that what eyewitness accounts have always been like?
Some have commented that "#mumbai" Twitter became "an incoherent, rumour-fueled mob operating in a mad echo chamber of tweets, re-tweets, and re-re-tweets."
Reading the tweets from the time, I would agree.
The Twitter "coverage" of the attack cannot be compared to that of a professional news source. Despite what the New York Times may think, I don't consider the coverage "citizen journalism," rather, citizens aiding journalism. All eyewitness accounts were at the time unsubstantiated, unconfirmed, and thus, unreliable. They did serve as a reference point from which news organizations could confirm and elaborate news points, and as such greatly benefited the reporting of the incident.
I agree with the Times that the internet provided an excellent resource for those mourning the losses sustained, but that was the extent of the medium's unaided effort. What did come out of the Mumbai experience on Twitter was a outcry against international terrorism, a blast of support to those affected by the attacks, and a source for links to reputable stories about the incident.
All said, the online experience of Mumbai further fuels the argument that the online community is nowhere close to prepared to replace professional journalism. Most of the substantial tweets on the subject were regurgitation of news stories. Those that were not could not be easily verified by readers. With ease of use and mobility, the online community was able to add richness of conversation to the story, but did little to affect the story or its coverage.
Twitter was certainly a notable footnote in the coverage of Mumbai, but a footnote is still just a footnote.
1 comment:
Though it may still be a footnote, I feel it was a boon for citizen journalism. So much so that one writer on Poynter.org wrote an article to tweeters on basic journalistic principles. Obviously, some are taking this pretty seriously.
Post a Comment