by Reg Seeton
The Future in the present
Let
me just say that Social Media and news is the
here and now. How it will evolve for the future
has a lot of people asking questions and searching
for answers. However, only weeks ago word hit
the web that Facebook could soon become the
world's leading news reader while other more
recent reports indicate MySpace is aiming to
engage in the social networking battle to knock
Facebook out of its position in the market.
People have been shouting from the hilltops
for what seems like an eternity that Twitter
is THE wave of the future for breaking news.
In many respects, with regard to the most visible
mainstream social networks, the corporate battle
of Social Media and news has just begun. But
just because people say a network like Twitter
is the wave of the future for breaking news,
does that make it true? The undeniable reality
is another resounding no, it doesn't make Social
Media a reliable source medium for breaking
news simply because someone says so.
Case in point: Nelson Mandela
Back in December, former anti-apartheid activist and South African President, Nelson Mandela, became the target of a hoax on Twitter when word broke on the network that Mandela had passed away. Although intuitively it only took about five minutes to get the real story since the information only existed on Twitter, I invested time to get verification across all of the major media outlets, both on and offline, with e-mails sent out to a variety of colleagues. During that time I also tracked the story via Twitter activity and was shocked to see so many people tweeting that Nelson Mandela had passed away without any legitimate verification. A major world leader had allegedly passed away yet no mainstream news organizations were reporting the story? After previous hoaxes, did Twitter finally scoop the elite mainstream media to become the future of breaking news? As it turned out, as we all know, the story was false. But why were so many people twittering the story as fact, blindly assuming that Mandela had died simply because it was tweeted as such?
Filtered vs. Unfiltered
Since information is shared instantaneously through social networks and there's less time for fact checking and verification, in many cases we're left to blindly trust the source - the individual - submitting the news. Forget retweets and third party story postings, that's not what I'm talking about. Anyone can retweet a story or post a link. In fact, I could probably train a Weiner dog to take care of my retweet activity it's so mindless (there you go entrepreneurs, free idea: Weiner dog rewteet service).
But since the Social Media is reshaping journalism, how do you measure quality control? How do you know that the individual posting news has a firm understanding on what is or isn't newsworthy? How do you know there's not bias or agenda? The fact is, you don't. Why should I blindly trust that everyone has the same capacity to filter and understand the scope of being a journalist, the process of properly reporting news, and professionalism. The fact is, not everyone has the same world view or capacity to understand at the same level. Because of that, there are accurate world views and inaccurate perspectives at play at the same time under an overarching Social Media umbrella of assumed trust.
Since there isn't a filter within Social Media for quality control, why should trust be blindly assumed and not earned? If a person (let alone a journalist) doesn't even understand the importance of filter and quality, it leaves a flaw in the fabric. Without any type of filter, how can Social Media be the future of breaking news? Since information is shared instantaneously and there's even less time for proper verification, is the future of breaking news really in the realm of rumor, speculation and hearsay?
The People vs. The People
One
thing that you can't deny is that the success
of Social Media and all things great about social
networking comes from the people engaged in
collaboration. However, for all the great aspects
of Social Media, the flaws and failures of Social
Media work in the same capacity. Social Media
and social networks are transforming how we
interact with information and each other because
of people, but its flaws are also directly tied
to - for lack of a better comparison - the flaws
of people.
Despite how much some want Social Media and networks like Twitter and Facebook to be THE credible and reliable mediums for breaking news, at the present time there's too much confusion at play between the speed at which people can receive information, the excitement of the delivery process, how people interpret that information, and trust in the accuracy of perceived news. People are the reason why social networking has become such an exciting phenomenon but people are also the reason why there are many flaws with Social Media and networks as credible and reliable source mediums.
Just because news is being delivered in new ways and more editorial diversity exists, it doesn't mean that Social Media is free of inherent flaws that shouldn't be explored as much as the positive aspects. If no one is talking about the flaws of Social Media as much as the strengths, there's an organic imbalance. But it's a healthy process to do so in order to address how Social Media CAN become the future of breaking news. Also, in relation to Social Media and the future of breaking news, diversity is great but one-sided agenda, bias, and the potential destructive aspects of people in groups can quickly transform something great into a useless mess. At the very core of Social Media and networking are rhythms and dynamics of human behavior governed by universal laws of nature. Human behavior is, to say the least, highly predictable.
Can Social Media be trusted for reliable breaking news on the same scale as the traditional mainstream media? At the present time, no. Is that stopping Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter from doing battle to claim top spot in the market for the future? Absolutely not, that future is already predetermined. Although I've outlined a number of points as to why, the Nelson Mandela hoax was proof positive that Social Media can't be trusted completely and that people need to collaborate more to address both the positive and negative aspects of social networking and media for a brighter future.
