Posts Tagged ‘Web 2.0’

Note: I originally published this on my Tumblr, which focuses on journalism, but thought I’d post it over here, too.

A piece in the Toronto Standard today this week demands more accountability for online news. Amelia Schonbek uses CBC’s Rob Ford called 911 and used the F-bomb story (from almost two months ago) as a way to illustrate her point that online news is not accountable enough to its readers.

(F)ew have discussed a potentially more serious issue: the manner in which CBC.ca published and revised its reporting as the story developed. … The CBC’s original story was published at 5:18 a.m. on October 27. Over the course of the day, it went through several updates. By the time it was last updated, after 9 p.m. the same night, it had become a completely different piece—new information had been added, old information had disappeared, and it even had a different headline.

Schonbek is quick to point out many newspapers often do this, but she writes this is wrong because:

There was no way for anyone to revisit and assess the original content. It was made invisible.

I don’t know that I buy that. I can’t turn back the clock to compare the two stories, but I do believe the CBC stood by its story. There was no correction, no retraction. If anything, the CBC probably moved the story forward by adding Ford’s apology and denial, as well as the comments made by his brother, Doug Ford. To me, this is all good reporting and what the story has become.

It’s important to remember that with any story, the story that is posted at 5:18 a.m. is bound to change throughout the day into something different by 9 p.m.

Schonbek does propose changes to how online news is posted to make it more “transparent” to its readers:

Newspapers could, for instance, implement a tab system: at every URL, a reader would be able to click through different versions of the story in different tabs, each of which would be time-stamped. The most recent version would appear on top, but if readers wanted to reference past reporting, they could simply flick through the tabs and compare versions.

While an interesting idea, I don’t think this is at all practical. Online news consumers, for the most part, would never read all that content, they just don’t care that much.

The biggest question I have after reading this piece, and other pieces like it, is: Why do we not criticize 24 hour news stations, such as CNN, in the same way we criticize online news?

In her piece, Schonbek also references how (some) of the media killed Gabrielle Giffords back in January. Fair enough, but it wasn’t just online news that got that wrong, CNN also reported the congresswoman had been killed. CNN even said it had confirmed it “with CNN sources.” Now, whether CNN’s sources were tweets from NPR and Reuters remains to be seen, but CNN still killed the congresswoman. And then, she was brought back to life and no one demonized the news network for their misreporting.

(I’m not saying online news reports should not correct errors, or point out to readers when they change something that was wrong in their copy, but I do not believe that to be the case here. As far as I know, CBC continues to stand by their original story.)

News networks are often filled with erroneous reports throughout the day as a story develops because, well, a story is developing. If the Internet did not exist, then that CBC story would have been read on air first thing in the morning, then changed, amended and moved forward as the day went on. One would assume the story you would hear on the radio on your way into work would be nothing near what you’d hear on the way home.

Where is the demand for accountability with 24-hour news networks? Why are we demanding online news be held to a higher standard than the rest?

A look at the lack of tweets after the Canada-Norway world juniors game Wednesday night.

(more…)

In March, I blogged in response to a column by The Globe and Mail‘s Margaret Wente saying that all bloggers are male (and she’s obviously right; there are no female bloggers out there).

This weekend, Wente once again tried her old-media hand at new media. And, once again, Wente failed in a spectacular fashion.

In “You’re really not that interesting, and neither am I,” Wente talks about how social media (specifically Facebook, with a dash of Twitter thrown in) is utterly ridiculous and that she doesn’t see what the point is. Now Wente’s anti-Twitter stance is no surprise (she hasn’t tweeted from her account since March of 2009).

It’s not that Wente hasn’t tried this whole Facebook-thing (because she says it would be snobby to turn her nose up at something she has no clue about):

I signed up and began friending anyone who asked. I now have 147 friends, almost none of whom I actually know. Most seem very nice. Their tastes and activities are as ordinary as my own. I have 64 unanswered messages, four unreturned pokes and 28 new friend requests. I feel incredibly popular, but also guilty, because I’m not a very good friend. I never tell them anything about myself. I haven’t even put my picture on my Facebook page. I simply don’t believe I’m all that interesting to anyone but me. Besides, it’s none of their business.

Hmm. Well, assuming of the five Margaret Wente’s I found on Facebook this one is actually her, then (like many other people on social media), Wente inflated her friends count. She really has 103.

And on Twitter, of which Wente is such an avid user, she says:

Tweeting strikes me as an even more pointless waste of time. The answer to “What are you doing?” tends to be utterly inane…

My chief problem with Wente’s complaints about social media is that they are so 2006. Really.

I have over 100 friends on Facebook, which I have cut down by choice, I could have more. But I’ve found it’s more rewarding for me to be friends with people on Facebook I actually interact with.

The same goes on Twitter, I follow under 200 people and only follow those who interest me. I’m not interested in the inane status updates. And the people who post those? They tend not to have too many friends/followers either. It’s not just you, Margaret who is not interested in reading those — no one is.

Social media is just that — social. It’s about a discussion, about seeing things in a new light. Wente seems to have a very old-media approach to social media. She says it herself — she doesn’t interact with her “friends” on her Facebook, she watches them interact. She prefers to tell people what to think through her column and not participate in the discussion that results from that.

Other journalists are not like this. There are a number of Canadian journalists and columnists who are active on Twitter, discussing with their readers and not sitting alone knowing they are right and everyone else is wrong. This is the journalism of the future. This is what will save our industry.

And if social media is such a waste of time, I have one question for Margaret Wente: Why is that Facebook like button above your article? Why can I click a button to easily tweet a link to it to everyone in my network?

Why, if my status updates are so inane and boring, would anyone ever want to read anything I recommend on social media? (Even if that update is a link to your article.)

Can social media be a judge of who will win Tuesday night’s Dancing with the Stars finale?

After the jump, see my Storify post with video of the freestyle dances of the finale three as well as to see how the celebrities were faring on Twitter Tuesday afternoon.

You can see all my past Storify posts here.

(more…)