NYT: Iran coverage bends journalism rules

29 06 2009

CNN IranAcknowledging that it’s a bitter pill to swallow, the New York Times notes that the traditional media’s embrace of feeds from Iran via Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and blogs “amounts to the biggest embrace yet of a collaborative new style of news gathering — one that combines the contributions of ordinary citizens with the reports and analysis of journalists.”

Many mainstream media sources, which have in the past been critical of the undifferentiated sources of information on the Web, had little choice but to throw open their doors in this case. As the protests against Mr. Ahmadinejad grew, the government sharply curtailed the foreign press. As visas expired, many journalists packed up, and the ones who stayed were barred from reporting on the streets.

In a news vacuum, amateur videos and eyewitness accounts became the de facto source for information.

The newspaper admits that in publishing this material first and asking questions later, the news media violates one of the first rules of journalism: “Know the source.” Often, the nature of the content relayed by tradtional media — as well as its context, and timing — are so vague as to add little understanding to what is going on. So far, there appears to be little mischief or deceit among the anonymous transmittals from Iran. The unusual circumstances in Iran, though, seem to have opened a few eyes among traditional media.

Bill Mitchell, a senior leader at the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit school for journalists, said the extent of user involvement shown in the Iran coverage seems to be a new way of thinking about journalism.

“Instead of limiting ourselves to full-blown articles to be written by a journalist (professional or otherwise), the idea is to look closely at stories as they unfold and ask: is there a piece of this story I’m in a particularly good position to enhance or advance?” he said in an e-mail message.

“And it’s not just a question for journalists,” he added.

I’ve got to admit I’ve been queasy about the use of so much unsupported and unverifiable information, particularly the highly emotional imagery. There is danger of inflaming a reaction that could lead, again, to rash intervention and unwise foreign entanglements. I’ve railed at broadcasters’ running and rerunning footage about which they know practically nothing, other than that it contains blood and violence. I suspect journalists and politicians of projecting their own agendas onto these vague images.

Still, I come back to thinking that some information is better than none. It’s better for us to have a glimpse, however obscure, into something obviously massive and possibly historic. Maybe later on we can know and understand what we are seeing today — if the media and audience attention span allow.





Digital Revolution Frustrates Iranian Thug Regime

15 06 2009

This from the London Guardian’s News Blog is really cool.

 

Iranian people turn digital smugglers in battle for information

Despite depleted phone and internet services, protesters are becoming more inventive in methods of spreading their message

In days gone by, crushing a revolution was a lot easier. There were no mobile phones to co-ordinate street action or relay what was happening to the outside world. Even more importantly, there wasn’t an internet. Now it is common to hear of “internet” or even “twitter revolutions” – as Andrew Sullivan on the Atlantic has already described the current protests in Iran.

It is precisely for that reason that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appears to have – temporarily at least – shut down Facebook, Twitter, mobile phone networks and unsympathetic websites. Nevertheless, Iranians are still managing to feed out information, embracing the technology that the moderate Mir Hossein Mousavi employed during his ultimately unsuccessful election campaign.

Protestors are uploading dramatic photos of confrontations with police on sites like Flickr.

Iran

When we see spontaneous and courageous communiques like this taking advantage of new media, it’s clear that the term “revolution” is correctly applied to what’s happening in digital communications. It’s also clear how digital communications facilitate democratic and human rights revolutions. Scenes like this will only encourage despotic societies like China to clamp down harder on the Internet, but the tide will prove irresistible. The more wired a country, the less tenacious tyrrany.





Journalism not alone in lacking a revenue model

5 05 2009

Ad Age: The Coming End of YouTube, Twitter and Facebook Socialism:

I love YouTube, I’ve made some interesting connections through Facebook, and I enjoy Twittering. (Last week, for instance, I tweeted about an astonishing bit of information I came across in Britain’s Daily Telegraph: YouTube “reportedly uses as much bandwidth as the entire internet took up in 2000.”)

But I also know it can’t go on like this. The digital Robin Hoods can’t keep redistributing the wealth forever, because eventually the wealth runs out. Investors get sick of propping up private ventures that don’t have viable business models, and shareholders of public companies, like Google, get cranky about flushing cash down the drain.

So what can we do? Not much, I suppose, other than enjoy it while it lasts — and maybe twitter a prayer for VCs everywhere.

Facebook may be in for the long haul, based on the increasing ads I’m seeing there.

But the article raises a good question: How is it that so many very intelligent people have come to expect all the wonders of the Internet for free? They scoff when worriers like me talk about pay-for-content. We’re used to it that way. But sooner or later, somebody has to pay the bills.