I used Storify to document the Twitter reaction to Pat Burns’ death tonight. It was interesting to see how people went from skepticism to acceptance in just under an hour.
Tag Archive for News
The Russell Williams hearing: When is too much too much?
When I was 13, Paul Bernardo went to trial.
Every day on my way to school, I’d steal The Hamilton Spectator‘s news section from our front porch and read the prior day’s details in court while I walked. My teachers looked the other way when I arrived with my reading material, but no doubt were less-than-impressed to see a child take such a vested interest in such a horrific case.
I don’t remember those details clearly anymore. I know what Bernardo and his then-wife Karla Homolka did, but I don’t remember the court details except reading about them on my way to school. Years later as an adult, I bought Nick Pron’s book on the case, Lethal Marriage. It was the hardest book I’ve ever read.
Even the disappearances of Leslie Mahaffey and Kristen French didn’t hit me hard. It wasn’t until my mother and I started to watch the made-for-TV movie on French’s disappearance that I cried about it. The only thing that has stuck with me ever since that case is the shoe French left behind when she was snatched. Now every time I see a lone shoe on the street, I get a chill down my spine.
Along with everyone else in the country, I was shocked when Col. Russel Williams was arrested and charged with the murders of Jessica Lloyd and Marie-France Comeau earlier this year. Not because of the crime at that point, but because of the fact these murders were committed by someone so high-ranking in the military.
Then the colonel plead guilty, which meant we wouldn’t have to wait for the details of his crimes, we’d get them almost immediately.
The press decided to live-blog and live-tweet the court proceedings. The details were explicit and sickening. The way the press has decided to cover this hearing has raised a lot of questions about whether the coverage has gone too far.
People on Twitter are complaining that the tweets are crossing a line. Some are unfollowing journalists. Even other journalists were saying that there has been too much released to the public. The details and exhibits from the court are mind-bending, so where do we draw a line?
I wondered yesterday if cameras in courts would change the way the press had decided to cover this hearing. If people could choose to turn on the TV and watch the Williams hearing, would there be a need for live-tweeting and blogging?
Does live-tweeting cross a line because the information is coming straight to a person, they are not choosing to access it? Similarly, should the front pages of the daily papers mute the coverage and leave the explicit stuff inside?
In short, should we censor the news?
I say no.
Even with Twitter, people can choose to access this information or ignore it. If they decide to unfollow certain journalists while they do their job, then that’s what they’ll do. The information needs to be on the front pages because that’s where it belongs.
It’s not about being sensational, it’s about reporting the facts. The court is hearing salacious details of Williams’ assaults and murders and entering it into the public sphere, it is the press’ job to report on that. Murder and sexual assault are not issues that should be glossed over, nor are they issues that should be buried in the paper for fear of offence.
The news is not something you should be able to turn away from. Too often we ignore what evil is happening in our world because we live in a little bubble. We don’t like to hear about the bad parts in our world, so we look the other way. We ignore genocides, women being raped in the Congo because it’s happening “over there.” I’d wager we don’t even have a clear idea what’s really happening in Iraq or Afghanistan because it’s easier to ignore it than to feel it.
The images and tails of 9/11 were plastered on every front page in North America when it happened. That too was a tragedy. Thousands of people died. Television stations showed close ups of people jumping to their deaths from the World Trade Center. If Twitter had been around during 9/11, I’m sure it would have been live-tweeted too. But instead we watched it all live on TV — and we did all watch it.
If Paul Bernardo went to trial today, there’s no doubt those proceedings would be covered just as Williams’ is currently.
People complain the coverage is too much, yet the Williams hearing is some of the most-read stuff on Canadian news sites (The Star and the Globe as of this posting). As for the journalists everyone has decided to unfollow because of their tweets from inside the courtroom — think about what they have to endure this week being inside that courtroom.
Journalism is changing and evolving. It has to. If it doesn’t, it’s going to die. Live-tweeting and blogging is just another way to deliver the news.
Even when that news isn’t so pretty.
The problem with journalists and Twitter
Another journalist, another Twitter mea culpa.
This time it’s a Canadian journalist who’s come under fire for remarks made online. CBC’s Jason Davidson is facing criticism, and possible discipline from his employer, for remarks he made on Twitter last week.
According to a report by QMI Agency, Davidson tweeted his frustrations at the fans who booed Montreal Canadiens goaltender Carey Price after he allowed four goal on nine shots.
“OK, separatist Habs fans, stop booing Price. I know it’s idiots of your type,” he tweeted (the tweet has since been removed, with Davidson tweeting he deleted it and “should never have implicated politics, which had nothing to do with hockey.”
Now, Davidson’s not the first journalist to come under fire for remarks made on Twitter, and he likely won’t be the last.
The question here is why are so many journalists unable to avoid this landmine?
Obviously, journalists are human, and therefore are bound to make mistakes. However, social media being just that, media, makes me wonder why journalists don’t seem to have more common sense when it comes to social media.
Journalists are used to being in the public eye and appearing to be unbiased (I say “appearing” because, again, we are human and do have biases — good journalists are just able to toss aside personal opinions when it comes to their work). Good journalists don’t announce who their voting for, what they think of political issues or take a stand when it comes to public policy.
Journalists also are often the ones to witness a private citizen having a meltdown in the press firsthand (i.e. saying things they shouldn’t on the record — sound familiar?), so why does that go out the window when it comes to Twitter?
Perhaps many journalists forget that they are a journalist first and, if they have a Twitter account which they use to tweet for work, they are representing their organization at all times while using that account. Even if journalists are not “officially” tweeting for their employer, by process of association, they are (meaning as far as the public is concerned if you work for CBC, you represent CBC — always).
Was what Davidson did wrong? If he meant it to be Quebec-bashing, then yes. If he was venting because he realized that this was just an exhibition game, meaning Price could have let in nine goals on nine shots and it still wouldn’t stop the Habs from making the playoffs this year, then there’s a bit of a grey area there.
Is it a fireable offence? Well, I don’t think Octavia Nasr should have been fired by CNN for expressing her condolences for the death of Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, so I definitely don’t think Davidson should be either. Should he be disciplined? Undoubtedly, mainly because he should know better (after all, according to his Twitter bio, he sometimes co-hosts on the I-Desk).
Perhaps more educating needs to be done to journalists. Many may not realize that they can’t tweet everything that comes into their heads (it’s not about censoring, but being smart — think of the newsroom humour that many outside of it would not find nearly as funny as those inside it do).
But it also comes down to a journalist’s Twitter voice and followers. The National Post‘s Bruce Arthur often tweets observations that are absurd, wry and sarcastic. But that’s the voice he has developed in his columns and on his Twitter feed — his followers would expect nothing less. (And yes, Arthur has a bit more freedom because he is a columnist.)
Journalists have to remember which side of the microphone they are on and not forget how they have seen so many people say things publicly that they immediately regret.
They don’t want to be one of them.
(Thanks to @travisboisvenue‘s post on MediaStyle for hat-tip.)
What happened to the “real news?”
As I sat down to watch the 6 p.m. news Tuesday night, I was happy to be away from the Internet for awhile.
Away from Steven Slater. Away from Dry Erase Girl. Away from Chicken McNugget Freakout.
So imagine my horror when Steven Slater was promoed in the introduction to the newscast — a local newscast. And how was it promoed? They sent a reporter around retelling the story to people to get their reactions.
You’ve got to be kidding me (oh and for good measure, Chicken McNugget Freakout was in their “world” news).
I know television news is having trouble staying afloat during the recession — after all, advertising is down for them, too. But this made me shake my head. I only felt a little bit worse when I saw on Twitter that both these stories were also on my national newscast.
The biggest problem I have with this is why stuff like this is taking up valuable airtime and taking time away from an actual story. My local newsman could have been out trolling the streets for a real story (after all that Rob Ford parody site was shut down on Tuesday, perhaps that could have been looked into or what about the Hamilton Tiger-Cats threatening to leave Hamilton and the city council vote that could push them out the door that was going on?).
I watch my local news to see what is going on in my city. Not to watch people in my city describe what someone else did in another city the day before!
Perhaps that’s what really irks me about the situation: Slater’s tantrum happened on Monday. Unlike newspapers, TV news comes out the same day events happen (that’s their “advantage”). So why is local news still talking about it? Mention Slater got bail, but don’t send one of your few reporters around the city retelling the tale.
Newspapers may not know how to work the Internet into their business model, but TV news is even worse. They tend to play videos that are a hit online just because (a few weeks ago I saw a goal celebration video on the news that I had already seen on the Internet the week before).
It’s about repackaging content. And perhaps I am just too tuned into the online world and the real world to fall for such shenanigans, but it get shameful when “stories” like these two take up valuable airtime from other newsier items of the day.
Thank god Dry Erase Girl is a hoax, maybe that means I won’t be seeing her on tonight’s 6 p.m. newscast. Or perhaps it means I will.
Good luck, Gabby
Why would I?
I didn’t live in Arizona and wasn’t particularly plugged into that part of American politics. Sure, I’m sure I saw her name in news stories and reports, especially after Arizona’s controversial immigration law was passed. But as with most other American congressmen and women — and even governors — her name just didn’t stick.
Then January 8 happened. I remembered following the events of that day on Twitter, especially her “death” — which was later proven to be untrue. That day was the first time in a long time I turned on CNN to follow the events in Arizona.
I don’t know why, but Giffords’ story struck a chord with me. Even before we knew anything about how she was doing.
After the first post-shooting images of her were released, I was even more struck by Giffords and her story. She looked so happy, so at peace, so OK.
Giffords’ first television interview was with Dianne Sawyer. I spent most of the hour in tears watching in amazement at the videos of this woman fighting so hard to be who she was all over again.
“She sounds like a child,” my boyfriend commented after one section where Giffords spoke.
He was right, she did. She spoke in short, usually one-word sentences. She looked confused when she was asked some questions, but I still saw so much hope and possibility from her.
Late last year, Gabby: A Story of Courage and Hope was released — a book by Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly. The book told the story of Giffords’ life before the shooting, but more of it took place in the days, weeks and months that came afterward. How she fought to build her life back — to walk, to talk — to learn everything all over again.
Of course, the real question was whether Giffords was going to run for re-election this year. Whenever it was asked, Kelly always gave the same response: The decision was Giffords’ alone to make, and she had until May to make it.
Then this weekend we got more news from Giffords. Only this time, it wasn’t about her future aspirations. This time it was about her present situation. She had decided she would be resigning her congressional seat.
In a video released on her website, wearing a red jacket almost just like the one she was shot in just over a year ago, Giffords said farewell:
“I will return,” Giffords promised, smiling in a way that you could almost see the “old” Gabby shining through.
She promised that while she was getting better, she needed to take some time to focus on her recovery. And while she didn’t expressly say she wasn’t planning to run again, the video made it pretty clear that her political career was probably done.
The New York Times reported Sunday night that Giffords would end her term in congress finishing the Congress on Your Corner event in the supermarket parking lot where she was shot one year ago.
Perhaps because of that decision, and so many others, I still see hope from Gabrielle Gifford. Sunday’s events reminded me of some of what she had written in Gabby‘s final chapter entitled “Gabby’s Voice:”
I hope I never have to fight a battle like the one that Gabrielle Giffords is fighting, but I know I will fight smaller battles throughout my lifetime.
I hope like Giffords, no matter how tough my fight may seem or how futile it appears to be, I hope I am able to hold my head up high and carry on. I hope no matter how dark things may seem, I am able to say exactly what Giffords said:
Of that, I have no doubt.
Good luck, Gabby.
Photo for blog post a screengrab from Giffords’ video announcing her resignation.