Social Media As Breaking News: Worse Information, Faster

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Are you trying to tell me that somebody with a Twitter account, that lives three thousand miles from a crime scene, is not the most reliable source for news? I find that hard to believe. :D

The unfolding of breaking news on social media can create a dangerous well of misinformation, witch-hunting, and egomaniacal info-spewing. Time for some ground rules for the Internet.
Click to expand...
 
It's justifiable to blame the social media's response to Boston, but the Mainstream Media made total fools of themselves. It really seemed like they were flat-out making stuff up.

They had little credibility in my eyes before this, now they have zero.

You just can't trust anything they say anymore.
 
zero1945 said:
It's justifiable to blame the social media's response to Boston, but the Mainstream Media made total fools of themselves. It really seemed like they were flat-out making stuff up.

They had little credibility in my eyes before this, now they have zero.

You just can't trust anything they say anymore.
Click to expand...

The 24 hour news cycle and the desire for news media outlets to be "first" is driving them to pump out less and less reliable news, but faster. It's a competition, but for the wrong metric and for the wrong reasons.
 
It's all about the ratings when it comes to news. Get it out before everyone else and you'll get higher ratings.
 
But this is what people want. Damn accuracy, they just want the "news" right now!
 
I was reading Reddit and saw video of the suspects in a shootout posted on Facebook 3 hours before CNN said much of anything about it. CNN showed the same shaky cam video 3 hours after the fact. I also saw the gumshoe detectives that mislabeled that kid as a terrorist. I knew they threw a pressure cooker bomb many hours before CNN knew what was going on.

The problem is that people rush to judge so fact that any type of unofficial suspects listing is going to have grave consequences one day. Plus if the suspect had half a brain he knew where not to go just by listening to the police scanner. So there should be better communication protocols within the police department while at the same time letting the public know what's going on.
 
"...can create a dangerous well of misinformation, witch-hunting, and egomaniacal info-spewing. Time for some ground rules..."

This is a fair description of what we get from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, Hollywood, all three branches of government, The Green movement, the gay and lesbian movement, PITA, militant feminism, militant Islam, the KKK, the NAACP, almost any "non-profit" organization, various banks, almost all major communications companies, various tech companies, all major drug and chemical companies, the Church of Scientology, the Catholic Church.......etc.etc.etc.
 
Rules do nothing. Its up to you to turn the channel and not go back when they screw up.
 
Generally, I watch CNN for the news. However, with the way they reported the Boston bombings, I changed the channel over to MSNBC which was at least marginally better. CNN did an embarrassing job.
 
i normally watch cnn. i also felt that they were just making shit up as they went. it was pretty embarrassing. i loved how alot of them tried to have a sad face on and you could even tell that was fake.
 
What really irks me is when "news" outlets do stories on what random idiots or even celebrities are saying on Twitter or Facebook. Nothing else says "journalism is dead" quite so succinctly.
 
As opposed to the Legacy Media which serves up the wrong information, just slower.
 
Well, it's the news outlet version of "FIRST!".

Sad, really. So much misinformation was spread. I'm good on speculation, as long as it's labeled as such. Telling it from a news outlet as news is just spreading FUD.

Of all the things that I've found, and a sign I'm getting older, is that NPR seems to wait until there are more confirmed reports instead of just going for 'first'. Yea, I started listening to news talk radio. Much better than other radio, so far. Waiting on a good SiriusXM deck for the car.
 
zero1945 said:
It's justifiable to blame the social media's response to Boston, but the Mainstream Media made total fools of themselves. It really seemed like they were flat-out making stuff up.

They had little credibility in my eyes before this, now they have zero.

You just can't trust anything they say anymore.
Click to expand...

The other thing is you can't really legislate this (and you shouldn't)...so how do you really provide incentive for news outlets to provide something resembling the truth? (Just look at how low a bar I'm setting now hahah)

That's the real question. You would think journalistic integrity would be a large enough drive for honest, substantiated facts, but sigh, I have been disappointed time and again :/
 
prndll said:
"...can create a dangerous well of misinformation, witch-hunting, and egomaniacal info-spewing. Time for some ground rules..."

This is a fair description of what we get from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, Hollywood, all three branches of government, The Green movement, the gay and lesbian movement, PITA, militant feminism, militant Islam, the KKK, the NAACP, almost any "non-profit" organization, various banks, almost all major communications companies, various tech companies, all major drug and chemical companies, the Church of Scientology, the Catholic Church.......etc.etc.etc.
Click to expand...

I assume you meant PETA? Or is there an organization called PITA? Hmmmm....

That's one of the reasons I don't like to associate myself with specific groups. I have values, I support the values. If an organization supports those values, good for them.

And it actually works both ways. If I say I'm a part of an organization and I don't actually uphold the mission statement correctly, I'm doing a disservice to them and myself. That and I'm incredibly lazy.
 
@ballistic90
Your correct: I meant PETA....sorry
 
With social media and news outlets everyone is racing so they can be the first just for the novelty. All accuracy then goes out the window. It's kinda sad really. People could at least use language like "we believe that [...]" instead of saying it straight out. Or "we have unconfirmed reports" etc.
 
I'm pretty sure I don't care what's happening in the world and it doesn't matter if I know right away or three weeks later that it happened. If it's really important, I'll probably see whatever it is that's going on anyway.
 
I like my news imaginary. So I watch the Daily show, News Room, and Fox news.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top