When sources become journalists…..

13 02 2012

photo credit: I don't know, maybe

If the saying used to be “everyone’s a comedian”, now it should be “everyone’s a journalist”. Social media is changing the way we source news, the way news sources information, and the ease with which information is publicised.

A March 2010 survey on where people got at least some of their news information from revealed that 61% got it from social media. 61%! And it’s probably more now.

Now the statistics sceptic in me thinks – sure, but they probably promoted the survey online and hence got a biased sample. And that may be the case, but the fact that people are looking to social media for news items is interesting in itself.

The stats from the survey read:

  • social media – 61%
  • radio – 54%
  • newspapers – 50%
  • (no stats on TV news here though.)

Almost 92% said they got their information from more than one source. Not really surprising when I think of my own Twitter and Facebook habits, where a large number of sites or feeds I am following are in fact news media, magazines, journalists and publicists. And the occasional friend!

The roles and dominance of “old media” and “new media” seemed to have been changing quite significantly over the past couple of years. I first noticed this in 2010 when the South Australian Government announced they were going to close The Parks Community Centre. A lobby group was rapidly set up on Facebook and gathered thousands of members (eventually topping out at over 6,800). The interesting thing about this – other than the whole facilitation of social organising, which will probably form the basis of another posting later on – was that the traditional media sources seemed to be subscribing to the Facebook group and gaining their information from the Facebook site. New media was driving and providing content for new media. Eventually a couple of local newspapers got involved in organising rallies, thereby, one could say “creating” the news, but the Facebook group very much led the way, and, at the same time, made a minor local celebrity of the unsuspecting mum who had set up the group in the first place.

So then we have the recent article about BBC News, CNN and Sky News having difficulty setting guidelines for journalists about where to send information first – to subscribers or on Twitter. One presumes they may have a financial interest in getting it to subscribers first, but also, many news tweets are actually pointers back to a website, so the link needs to be set up before it can be tweeted. For non-linked tweets though, those that just provide information…..well, they need to remember they have competition out there and time is of the essence. Not only can you be scooped by a rival broadcaster, you can be scooped by the punters as well! The only difference is, journalists need to stop and make sure it is correct information. We punters are allowed (it seems) to be amateurs at the fact-checking function.

Yes indeed, it is not only journalists that are tweeting news, we punters are joining in. I recently posted about American Airlines and Weber Shandwick’s case study of how they managed social media and old media during a hijacking hoax at New York’s JFK Airport. The major sources of information were a couple of passengers tweeting from inside the plane in its ‘hijack quarantine”. Journalists then started contacting these tweeting passengers and asking for information beyond what the company was providing (presumably on the advice of police and security). So you could follow the journalists, or you could follow the passengers themselves – or both.

And so we come to today’s sad news about the death of Whitney Houston. And again it turns out that news of her death was tweeted 42 minutes prior to the official confirmation by Aja Dior M., who claimed that her aunt Tiffany worked for Whitney and had “just found [her] dead in the tub” – only 20 minutes after the official time of death (3.55pm). The news was again tweeted 27 minutes prior to the official spokesperson by “Big Chorizo” who claimed unnamed “sources” had informed him. (Of course no-one is actually reading ALL Twitter feeds so unless you were subscribed to either of these, you probably still didn’t know unless you happened to be looking up Whitney on Twitter at the right time…)

Was this how Whitney would have wanted news of her death handled? Was Aunt Tiffany employed to release information about Whitney? Or does the contract become null and void upon the death of the celebrity? We have no way of knowing if there were confidentiality clauses in the contract between Whitney and Tiffany (although I suspect this may become the subject of a future court case). While the phone-hacking and bribing scandals currently hitting various UK newspapers are (hopefully) bringing journalists and management to account for the ethics of how they gather information (and such activities are illegal for us all), are we going to hold citizen journalists to the same standards? How?

If everyone has become a journalist of sorts, sourcing and releasing information, and we are all moving to accessing our information online….there are a whole lot of ethical questions to be sorted out. And maybe a new understanding of confidentiality and privacy.

Other recent postings on the worlds of social media, marketing….and espionage!
And today’s bizarre social media news……
more from the bizarre worlds of marketing and espionage

and more from the bizarre worlds of marketing and espionage…

10 02 2012

Well, after yesterday’s look at bizarre social media stories, the strangeness continues. Is it a full moon?

1. BMW apologises for weather front deaths. Ad agency Sassenbach apparently advised its client, BMW, to sponsor a weather front crossing Europe. The idea was to promote the wind-and-weather-proof-ness of their Mini Cooper. Hence the Cooper weather system was christened and – well it had already unleashed itself on Europe, but it continued on its merry and somewhat unpredictable way. Apparently the German weather bureau allows brands to sponsor weather systems. Full marks to them for being able to “monetize” weather forecasting.

What’s wrong with this idea? Well, by definition, in order too have a name, the weather front must be (what they call in the business) “significant”. For significant, the lay-reader can substitute any of the following words: dangerous, inconvenient, catastrophic, deadly. You get the idea. So when the Cooper weather system resulted in 100 deaths in Poland and the Ukraine, BMW was put in the bizarre situation of apologising for the deaths associated with their weather front. (And for those that have picked the obvious link, I’m not going there. You’re on your own.)

So here is another interesting question. The weather bureau organises the sponsorship – could they not predict that this was going to be a bad system and might have potential downsides not only for their client, BMW, but also for the whole selling-off weather systems industry generally?

The story is here.

2. Gamification meets espionage. OK, so this is a pretty interesting concept, and I am sure there will be a movie made about this soon, if there hasn’t already been. Now I’m pretty keen on the concept of gamification – application of gaming principles (and often the gamers themselves) into solving real-world problems. In a previous posting I looked at how gamers had solved a biological puzzle about the shape of a protein that scientists had been unable to solve.

The US State Department and the US Embassy in Prague are sponsoring a social media game where gamers can win money by tracking down five people whose mugshots are shown on the game-site. Each of these people (who, in this instance, are paid actors and not real-life terrorists) is wearing a t-shirt saying that they are indeed the target, so there should be no difficulty differentiating them from other look-alikes. To win, you need to photograph all five and upload their images to the website.

So here’s where I went with this one.

1. This game, while harnessing the gaming-populace to achieve an aim, doesn’t really harness the cooperative effort that the previous gamification example did, where individuals worked together and worked off each other’s work to develop a result that was better than the efforts of any one individual (see definitions of “synergy” and “leverage”).

2. While this example has people wearing t-shirts to identify for the gamers that they have indeed identified and photographed the correct person, in real life there is considerable possibility of identity mix-ups. For instance, I am a dead-ringer for Angelina Jolie……(OK, I know that’s not relevant, I just dropped it in there as an example, and to implant this concept in your mind).

3. In real life we are talking about dangerous people being identified through this means. While harnessing the community to look out for each other is a good thing, I suspect any terrorist suddenly being followed by gamers and photographed is going to get a little (more) paranoid. And possibly aggressive. This could result in a lot of danger and possibly death for amateur detectives competing for $5k.

4. The other application mentioned in the article is tracking down missing children. Is gaming going to be more effective than saturation coverage of the child’s picture? Are we assuming that people are only going to be motivated by the possibility of winning a game worth $5k, and that it will be more effective than the current strategies of saturation coverage of photographs to the entire population, appeals about the safety of young innocents and often much larger financial rewards? What is this saying about us as a society? (And keep in mind that we already have instances of children and families being inadvertently identified as “missing children” – a very similar looking girl was photographed and tracked down in the very sad Madeleine McCann case. Imagine having random people taking photographs of your children when you were out in public – talk about paranoid.)

Now maybe this is a fabulous idea…..I don’t say yay or nay, I simply ask the questions and hope that the people doing these things are thinking very carefully about the ethics and implications of what they are setting up.

3. What the Steve Jobs file shows us about FBI investigative methodology. Gotta love this one. The recently released FBI file on Steve Jobs relates to a time during the Bush era when he was being considered for a US Federal advisory position. Much of the standard stuff is covered – they looked at his employment and family history, his political affiliations, interviewed colleagues etc. But the really interesting thing is the questionnaire that Jobs filled out for them. It contains such gems as…

24b. “Do you now use or supply, or with in the last five years have you used or supplied marijuana, cocaine, narcotics, hallucinogenics or other dangerous or illegal drugs?”

Seriously? Does anyone ever answer “yes” to that question, particularly when a government agency is asking the question? Is there any value in actually asking this question? Even if it was to cover the employer in case he is found out to be dealing drugs later – he’s dealing drugs, you can sack him on those grounds. You don’t need to also say he lied on his application.

And then, the 1950s throw-back gem… “Have you ever been a member, officer or employee of The Communist Party?” (Jobs answered no.) I am fascinated that they considered this to still be relevant in 1991 – or was Bush Snr planning to bring back reds-under-the-beds mentality? Perhaps this was plan A prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which gave him his “us and them” target in the Persian Gulf War. It would be interesting to know if this question is still on the application form.

But let’s finish on a positive note – a couple of positive stories, one on social media and one on the application of technology to remote medicine.

4. American Airlines and agency Weber Shandwick have released a case study on how they managed social media during a 2010 hijacking threat. After receiving an anonymous threat about a plane about to take off at JFK International Airport in New York, the plane was sequestered on a remote side of the airport and the passengers were kept on-board.

Of course in this day and age, “everyone” is connected to social media, and rumours rapidly swirled in the twitter-sphere. Two passengers in particular became identified as authorities on the unfolding events and were being contacted by news media for information. American Airlines monitors their social media mentions and hence was quickly aware of what was happening and how incorrect rumours were being repeated in social media and fed back to the passengers on-board. In a case-study of “how-to” they were quick and responsive, dealing in real-time with both the social media mentions, and also keeping their passengers informed about what was really happening. They recognised that their passengers were in fact de-facto reporters. And overall, they managed to contain any panic that escalating and unfounded rumours can cause.

American Airlines creative manager for social media, (the appropriately named) Jonathon Bird says: “The experience opened our eyes to the fact that we need to be able to respond immediately and accurately every time. And we are getting faster, better integrated and far less siloed.”

The case study is here.

The other thing I really like about this case study is how it demonstrates that social media is increasingly driving “old media” – newspaper and television journalists were using Twitter to source information.

I have added a couple of links about social media in emergency management to the bottom of this posting.

5. Mobile tablet technology saves lives. A 24-year-old Camerooni engineer, Arthur Zang, has invented a Cardiopad , which allows ECGs and other cardio-diagnostic tests to be done remotely and the results wirelessly sent to city-based specialists. Cameroon is a central-African country of 20 million, with only 30 cardiac specialists all concentrated in the two major cities. Remote area medicine is a major problem for many countries – including first world countries such as Australia and this invention has the potential to provide cutting-edge diagnostics in remote areas, cutting the costs of providing health care in remote areas, and also the travel and inconvenience experienced by patients residing in remote areas.

He is currently looking for venture capital to commercially produce the Cardiopad. So let’s harness the power of social media and pass this on – see if we can find the Venture Capitalist willing to back it. If ever an internationally worthwhile invention deserved funding on commercial and humanitarian grounds, this is surely it.

Interested in Social Media? here are a few more you might be interested in…
Social Media in Emergency Management
Social Media in Emergency Situations
And today’s bizarre social media news…