The Social Media Revolution: Exploring the Impact on Journalism and News Media Organizations

While the aforementioned tools shouldn’t be forgotten, according to contemporary research, Twitter appears to be one of the most discussed by communications professionals at this time. The free social-networking service allows short messages to be sent to and received by self-designated followers either using a computer and Internet connection or a mobile device with an Internet connection (Farhi 28). Also, unlike Facebook, Twitter’s primary users are adults aged 35 to 49 who say they use the tool at work (Farhi 30). In addition, Paul Farhi wrote, “Twitter attracts the sort of people that media people should love — those who are interested in, and engaged with, the news” (Farhi 30).

The public and journalists alike have found many uses for Twitter. Appealing features for journalists include its speed and brevity, which allow journalists to quickly post breaking news as well as swift-changing updates on stories (Farhi 28). The simplicity and asymmetry between writers and followers are also crucial aspects of Twitter for journalists (Levy 3). In addition, Twitter requires little care and interacting with the community via Twitter takes a limited amount of time (Farhi 28-9). Lowery discussed how her organization began using Twitter to push out stories as well as perform journalistic news gathering tasks.

“We used Twitter to do live coverage of stories of our choice. There’s an emphasis here on ‘choice’. Live-tweeting school board meetings might not quite work. Live-tweeting a high-profile court case, on the other hand, might. It’s all about listening to readers and applying news judgment in deciding which stories lend themselves to which medium” (Lowery).

While useful for disseminating information, journalists can also use it to gather information. Farhi described Twitter as a “living, breathing tip sheet for facts, new sources and story ideas.” He added, “It can provide instantaneous access to hard-to-reach newsmakers, given that there’s no PR person standing between a reporter and a tweet to a government official or corporate executive. It can also be a blunt instrument for crowdsourcing” (Farhi 28). Some journalists see Twitter’s usefulness in relation to story generation (Farhi 29). According to Dan Gillmor, veteran news media blogger and Arizona State University journalism professor, “Journalists should view Twitter as a ‘collective intelligence system’ that provides early warnings about trends, people and news” (Farhi 29). Comm offered similar sentiments by writing, “Tweets are the means to an end. Twitter is just a communication tool” (Comm xviii-xix).

The new tool isn’t perfect, though. Farhi suggested problems relating to the sheer volume of information. Journalists may have to sift through a lot to get to a story idea that’s worth a journalist’s time. Also, the 140-character limit means links to Web sites and articles must be short, and viewers might not know what they are clicking on before they click. However, to avoid these problems, some suggest paring down lists to keep only the most consistent users (Farhi 3o). Another large issue surrounding Twitter is how one can make money from using it (Levy 5). Ethically, Steven Levy also voiced concerns about blending the line between confidant and audience. He wrote, “Allowing unrestricted following eventually meant that P. Diddy could share the progress of a tantric sex session with a hundred thousand followers, and the Kennedy family could use Twitter to keep the public informed about developments in Uncle Teddy’s funeral” (Levy 3-4). Just like in TV and print, audiences can use social media tools like Twitter for entertainment or for news. In the end, there is also the concern that Twitter doesn’t have much staying power and is simply a trend with “devoted followers that has never lived up to its gargantuan hype” (Farhi 31). However, only time can prove or disprove this.

Despite these potential setbacks, inside Twitter documents show the start-up company expects to continue gaining tweeters, hoping to become the first Internet service to sign one billion users by 2013 (Levy 2). Whether or not Twitter will stick for a long time, in the here-and-now, the tool has helped facilitate conversation and build relationships among journalists, sources and the public, according to Lowery and Martin. “Twitter enables reporters to reach people where they are. People are busy, but they’re out there consuming and exchanging information on these networks. This is a way of bridging the gap with them and being more engaged” (Farhi 29). However, just because Twitter’s and social media’s futures might look bright doesn’t mean other media forms are done for. Mark Briggs, author of Journalism 2.0, wrote, “Just like the telephone didn’t replace the face-to-face meeting over coffee, and e-mail didn’t replace the telephone, social media doesn’t replace other forms of connecting with people. It adds to them” (Betancourt 3).

To fully understand how social media has impacted journalism, one must also consider a few recent events. Social journalism itself has been in existence long before social media came into the picture. One example of early social journalism is when police beat Rodney King in the 1992. One man present when the police beat King kept his camera rolling and submitted it to the mainstream media to spread the story (Lewis 1). The Internet also played a role in the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine (Baumann 1). This report will focus on four current events that used social media: the terrorist attacks in Mumbai in 2008, an explosion in Montana in 2009, the Iranian protests in summer 2009 and the Fort Hood shootings in November 2009.

Many believe information about the Mumbai terrorist attacks in 2008 broke first on Twitter. In an article on CNN.com, Neha Viswanathan, a former regional editor for Southeast Asia and a volunteer at Global Voices, said, “Even before I actually heard of (the attack) on the news, I saw stuff about this on Twitter. People were sending in messages about what they were hearing. There were at least five or six blogs from people who were trapped or who were very close to what happened” (Busari 1). In discussing the Iran protests in 2009, Matthew Weaver of The Guardian told nytimes.com, during rallies and conflicts, tweets arrive first, then pictures, then YouTube videos, then the wires (Stelter 1). Weaver also said what people report “at one point in the day is then confirmed by more conventional sources four or five hours later” (Stelter 1). According to the cnn.com article on the Mumbai attacks, eyewitnesses sent an estimated 80 messages every five seconds, providing updates and some even asking for blood donors to go to specific hospitals (Busari 1). The cnn.com article also reads, “However, as is the case with such widespread dissemination of information, a vast number of the posts amounted to unsubstantiated rumors and wild inaccuracies” (Busari 1). Blogger Tim Mallon also felt the Twitter coverage wasn’t great. He wrote, “Far from being a crowd-sourced version of the news, it was actually an incoherent, rumor-fueled mob operating in a mad echo chamber of tweets, retweets and re-retweets” (Busari 2). Twitter wasn’t the only tool involved, though. Witnesses posted “haunting images” of the aftermath of the attacks on Flickr, a photo-sharing Web site, for the world to see (Busari 1).

Twitter also showed its importance when an explosion in Bozeman, Mont., destroyed three businesses in the spring of 2009. Lowery, editor of NewWest.net, wrote, “Here in Montana, this explosion was our ‘aha’ moment in experiencing how social media, Twitter in particular, opens up new possibilities in journalism” (Lowery). She continued by saying both her news organization and the Bozeman Daily Chronicle quoted from the Twitter feed. However, she pointed out an important step they took. “We filtered the information and confirmed facts,” she wrote (Lowery). Also, one Bozeman-based journalist, Michael Becker, created a hashtag on Twitter to organize tweets about the explosion (Lowery). A hashtag is Twitter slang for a group of tweets on a specific topic, like #swineflu or #journchat (Farhi 29). On his blog, Becker wrote, “For a long time, people have been talking about the potential of Twitter as a news source. Today, Twitter earned its stripes” (Lowery). Becker continued by saying social media tools like Twitter will probably never replace the traditional media any time soon, but it “did a job that traditional journalism could not possibly do in a city of this size. It informed the people as quickly as events happened and let people know what they needed to know right away” (Lowery). Finally, Lowery also mentions the explosion helped her see a sort of “symbiotic relationship” between social and traditional media. Those on location can post quickly and traditional journalists can use these accounts, with some basic fact checking, to push vital information to the public in a more efficient manner (Lowery).