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

The protests in Iran during the summer of 2009 also caught a lot of social media attention. The string of protests in itself was a fairly popular topic. Interestingly, two in 10 said they followed the Iran story more closely than any other story that week. However, seven in 10 said they had heard about the media ban, and six in 10 said they had heard about Iranians posting amateur videos on sites like YouTube (The Pew 1). In fact, news organizations tended to cover just as much about what was happening in Iran as what was happening in the social media world because of Iran. Evegeny Morozov wrote,

“In the first days after the protests, it was hard to find a television network or a newspaper (never mind the blogs) that didn’t run a feature or an editorial extolling the role of Twitter in fomenting and publicizing the Iranian protests. The modish take of the usually sober Christian Science Monitor is representative of the heavily skewed coverage: ‘The government’s tight control of the Internet has spawned a generation adept at circumventing cyber roadblocks, making the country ripe for a technology-driven protest movement’” (Morozov 10).

Media criticisms surrounding the Iranian protests often focused on CNN, which obtains footage from citizens via its iReport service (Stelter 2). People can submit videos and the organization attempts to verify its truthfulness by contacting the poster (Stelter 2). When the Iranian government barred western journalists from reporting on the streets and cameras were confiscated, people began using devices like camera phones to submit videos and photos of the protests online (“Real-Time” 1). Such images include the video of Neda, who became a protest symbol, bleeding to death (Stelter 1). CNN wasn’t the only organization using citizen reports, though. The New York Times, The Huffington Post and The Guardian published “minute-by-minute blogs with a mix of unverified videos, anonymous Twitter messages and traditional accounts from Tehran” (Stelter 1). However, these blogs were a unique form of journalism, according to Brain Stelter of The New York Times. They tended to be “a collaborative news style of news gathering — one that combines the contributions of ordinary citizens with the reports and analysis of journalists” (Stelter 1).

However, blogs weren’t the only method used. Morozov pointed out foreign blogs require a lot of work, while Twitter is in real-time and easier to manage and maintain (Morozov 12). Some have disputed those who called the Iranian protests a Twitter Revolution, citing many reasons. Morozov wrote it was just a way for “cyber-utopian Western commentators” to justify spending so much time with Twitter (Morozov 11). Patrick Meier, author of the iRevolution and Tufts University Ph.D. candidate, said Iranians posting to Facebook and Twitter simply doesn’t make sense for two reasons: Iran’s Internet usage demographics and the dangers protestors could face if the government catches them communicating with Westerners online (Baumann 52). Morozov said the media’s Twitter coverage and discussions may have actually stole coverage away from what was actually happening to the protestors in Iran (Morozov 54). More evidence of this can be found in examining the information above regarding how more people surveyed had heard about Twitter’s presence in reporting on Iran than on what was happening in Iran (The Pew 1). Another criticism Morozov offered was in regards to reliability. He wrote, “This new media ecosystem is very much like the old game of ‘Telephone’ in which errors steadily accumulate in the transmission process, and the final message has nothing in common with the original” (Morozov 11). Not all agree with Morozov. Robert Mackey, editor of The Lede, a blog on The New York Time’s Web site, wrote, although some gave false claims, Twitter seems to be relatively truthful. “There seems to be very little mischief-making. People generally want to help solve the puzzle,” (Stelter 2). Some have also said Twitter acted as a media watchdog in the Iranian case (“Real-Time”). While seemingly opposed to the idea of a “Twitter Revolution” in relation to Iranian protests, Morozov does offer one positive outcome of the social media conversation surrounding the protests: Thousands of young Iranians may now want to experiment with Twitter (Morozov 14).

In even more recent months, social media’s effect on journalism was present during and after the Fort Hood shootings Nov. 5, 2009. A number of people claiming to be witnessing the events at Fort Hood tweeted and posted blog entries while the military base was locked down (Pew Research). Some mainstream media outlets picked up the stories from social media users, and some, including NBC’s Today show, The Huffington Post and The New York Times, set up aggregated lists, a new feature on Twitter, to follow comments and conversations on the topic (Pew Research). Megan Garber wrote for the Columbia Journalism Review: “Lists also represent, more significantly, a new — or, more precisely, a newly facilitated — way for news organizations to collaborate: They allow news outlets essentially to co-opt others’ reporting. But in a good way — to the benefit of the news organizations in question and, of course, their audiences” (Garber 1). However, while some of the information reported through social media was correct, blogs and Twitter also may be responsible for spreading rumors, like one saying more than one shooter had been involved in the incident (Pew Research). Paul Carr at TechCrunch, a technology-focused blog, wrote,

“For all the sound and fury, citizen journalism once again did nothing but spread misinformation, at a time when thousands of people with family at the base would have been freaking out already, and breach the privacy of those who had been killed or wounded. We learned not a single new fact, nor was a single life saved” (Pew Research).

In conclusion, Twitter continues to play a role in breaking news. To some it appears more resilient than other tools because users can participate via a variety of mobile devices as long as an Internet connection is available (Stone 2). Morozov summed it up quite well: “In the past one needed a fortune, or at least a good name, to cause much damage (to an entity). Today, all one needs is an Internet connection” (Morozov 12).

A number of new ethical considers emerge from the shift toward journalists’ increased use of social media. One of the most discussed ethical considerations revolves around a journalist’s personal and professional presences on social media and social networking sites. Journalists must know to verify comments before posting them (Farhi 31). But when is a journalist tweeting as a reporter and when as an average citizen? Many professionals agree while journalists can post their own opinions if desired, they must keep their news organizations in mind, and the same values that apply to traditional media also apply to social media (Betancourt 3). According to Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, “For journalists, transparency is one of the most important values. That means you don’t act as an individual, but there should be a caution gate if there’s something that might embarrass your newsroom” (Podger 34). Journalists have their own solutions to the personal-work social media balance. Cheryl Rossi, an arts and community news reporter at the Vancouver Courier in British Columbia, has two separate Facebook accounts, one for her work life and one for her personal life. Rossi said, “It might be me being technologically superstitious, but it just seems wrong for all of my friends and professional links to be in one place,” (Podger 36). To deal with the blending of the line between work life and personal life, newsrooms, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Associated Press and The San Francisco Chronicle, have begun crafting ethics and etiquette policies surrounding social media (Podger 33).

“Traditional newspapers are eager to harness the power of social networks to find and distribute information, but they also want to do it in a way that fosters responsible use. The goals are to identify the tripwires of social networks, avoid any appearance of impropriety and ensure the information can’t be used to impugn the integrity of their reporters, photographers and editors” (Podger 33).

Another hope of journalists and communications professionals is that the ethics documents will be dynamic, “living” documents (Podger 34). Jan Leach wrote, “As (Mircrosoft CEO Steve) Ballmer put it, ‘Static content won’t cut it for the consumer in the future.’ Neither will static ethics; as media evolve so, too, will ethical guidelines” (Leach). One instance of changing ethical suggestions relates to an issue The New York Times faced. Young Times staffers began tweeting information discussed at a meeting. None were reprimanded, but the Times made changes — they asked staffers to turn off devices and were sure to signify when information is proprietary (Podger 34).

Before drawing conclusions it is also important to investigate what’s in store for the future of journalism and news organizations because of the social media revolution. First, it is possible that journalism schools will slightly alter the way they teach new journalists. For example, DePaul University in Chicago plans to offer a course called “Digital Editing: From Breaking News to Tweets” regarding Twitter and citizen journalism (“DePaul” 1). However, some think the important thing to learn isn’t necessarily how to use tools since many young people are already using them (Greenhow). Instead, professors should focus on how “tools can be applied to enrich the craft of reporting and producing the news and ultimately telling the story in the best possible way” (Lavrusik 1).

Few believe newspapers will completely cease to exist, but few will deny newspapers’ forms will change in the years ahead. David Klein wrote, “But nothing in the foreseeable future (other than the Internet being dismantled) is going to enable papers to return to their old standard of living” (Klein 2). Klein predicts daily newspapers will have smaller staffs doing more work and getting paid less. He also predicts every city will have at least one print newspaper for the foreseeable future (Klein 1). Dean Singleton, chairman of MediaNews Group, does not think the print medium will completely dissolve. He said, “I’m still very confident that the newspaper industry will not only survive but will thrive over time. In a bit of a different model, but it still will. And I think the print newspaper will thrive over time” (Rider 4). Lewis wrote he sees journalists becoming more independent rather than belonging to single publishers (Lewis 2).