One day after the tragic terrorist attacks started in Mumbai, India, media outlets were tapping social media sites for their reports.
On the Wired magazine blog, Danger Room, Noah Schachtman collected the several Twitter feeds, Flickr photo collections, blogs, Wikipedia page (“shockingly current,” he described) and Google maps all about the attacks.
“Hospital update. Shots still being fired. Also Metro cinema next door,” said a Twitter user amid the attack. “Blood needed at JJ hospital,” added another Twitter user. (These are courtesy of Schachtman’s blog.)
None of it was lost on larger media, like The New York Times, which celebrated these “citizen journalists” for helping report the news:
At the peak of the violence, more than one message per second with the word “Mumbai” in it was being posted onto Twitter, a short-message service that has evolved from an oddity to a full-fledged news platform in just two years.
Those descriptions and others on Web sites and photo-sharing sites served as a chaotic but critically important link among people across the world—whether they be Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn tracking the fate of a rabbi held hostage at the Nariman House or students in Britain with loved ones back in India or people hanging on every twist and turn in the standoff while visiting relatives for Thanksgiving dinner.
Twitter, a Web site that lets people post updates 140 characters at a time, has served news outlets and companies during crisis. The Red Cross, for instance, used Twitter when communicating about Hurricane Ike, according to a recent Ragan.com article. The article said:
A company could set up a Twitter account and a message protocol for different situations that include emergencies. If all employees “follow” this Twitter account, they will receive a text message on their devices alerting them to the emergency.
For example … [new media strategist Tracy Viselli at QuinStreet Media explained] … “if there is a building fire during the morning commute, thousands of employees could be messaged at once not to come to the office until further notice.
But before we run off high-fiving about the wonders of Twitter for crisis communications, let’s also consider the worthless, angry and insulting Twitter messages that erupted during the attacks.
In the same Twitter feed, The Times and Schachtman use to illustrate the power of Web 2.0, people are spouting anger and hate.
“If you/we want to fight with Terrorism, We need to get rid of these Muslims,” one Twitter user wrote. Added another, “dont use such kind of words, Muslim have been died. Are you BJP p***sy licker? You seem to be any political son.”
If social media is what we want, it appears we have to take the good with the hateful and angry.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
It is the real important thing is Living in Now and being happy everyday.... 
RSS
Comments (5)
May you have enough happiness to make you sweet, enough trails to make you strong, enough sorrow to keep you human, enough hope to make you happy.
Posted by suprashoes | February 11, 2011 9:43 PM
Posted on February 11, 2011 21:43
Great comment Jon. We shouldn't silence social media (in this case twitter). We should engage it. Everyone has the opportunity to challenge opposing views. The positives of twitter far outweigh the negatives. The real time information coming out of Mumbai because of twitter was incredible. We just need to invest our time more heavily in media literacy in our schools so that people learn how to weigh social media properly.
Posted by Staci | December 1, 2008 5:50 PM
Posted on December 1, 2008 17:50
Good thoughts ... but when did pigeons begin speaking English, or any other language?
Surely you meant "pidgin English."
pid·gin
Function: noun
Etymology: pidgin English
Date: 1876
: a simplified speech used for communication between people with different languages
Posted by Larry Edwards | December 1, 2008 12:41 PM
Posted on December 1, 2008 12:41
It’s not just the news organizations that need to fear being replaced by Joe and Jane average citizen with a cell phone and a quick dexterity, it’s also the PR practitioners that feed them. We’d better learn to not only understand the new technology of communication, but the new short form reporting it demands of us. Communicating shorter doesn’t have to mean ‘pigeon or license plate English.’ It means being more concise and succinct while still being literate. It might be as simple as sparing us all the gratuitousness and jargon; and just telling something straight and honestly. No, not eliminating entirely that which makes the English language so beautiful in its description and imagery, but to simply cut out the superfluous and proselytizing…to inform and not to sell.
Posted by Dick | December 1, 2008 12:01 PM
Posted on December 1, 2008 12:01
Isn't it the same with mainstream outlets as well: the NY Times, Fox News, CNN, or any other media outlet?
Vulgarity aside, everyone has an agenda - it's just that the established news organizations have a more refined and subliminal way of expressing their POVs. Obviously Keith Olberman and Bill O' Reilly have a more polished way of... OK, bad examples.
To me, living in a world that, with the use of the internet, allows people to express themselves freely is a good thing. Even if you spout hate speech, I think it's good. It lets everyone know who you are and what you're about. For instance, if the people who wrote the passages Michael quotes in his article ever run for political office, we have a record of their ideology for all voters to see. And really, are intelligent people going to read this stuff and say, "Gosh...maybe we DO need to get rid of these Muslims"?
There's always a danger of influencing those who are easily swayed. That's the price you pay for freedom of speech.
But which is worse? These ignorami expressing vulgar views on the net, or the mainstream media passing off an agenda as objective journalism? I'm not saying we should silence either, but at least the vulgarians are honest and obvious. Frankly, I'm far more offended by the MSM and the misinformation I see on a daily basis.
But I wouldn't silence the MSM anymore than I would silence Joe Hate Speech. Most of these social media outlets give people the opportunity to respond. If I see something I disagree with, I see it as an opportunity to challenge what I believe to be bias or misinformation, and the internet has certainly give me that ability - as Michael will attest.
Posted by Jon | December 1, 2008 11:33 AM
Posted on December 1, 2008 11:33