Who do you trust with your news?

Everyone is talking about the power of citizen journalism these days. Social media tools that allow instant publication, such as blogging and Twitter, enable anyone with access to the Internet to report on what is happening around them. In many cases citizen journalists have scooped the news ahead of traditional news media — e.g. the ordinary guy who happened to be at the right place at the right time with his mobile phone to take a photo of the plane that crashed into the Hudson River in New York earlier this year.

There has been a lot of hand wringing by media commentators and the traditional newsgathering organisations. If anyone can be a journalist nowadays — and be happy to report on events for free — then what is the future for professional journalists with years of training who need to earn a living while reporting the news?

Last night, watching the rising tidal wave of news and speculation on the Internet about Michael Jackson’s death was an object lesson in why we still need serious journalists and why we need to find a way to continue properly remunerating them for fact-checked investigative reporting of the news.

I checked out my Twitter stream late last night after dinner and noticed a lot of Twitterers mourning the passing of Michael Jackson, posting “RIP Michael Jackson” and honouring his memory with reminiscences of his wonderful music and talent. Naturally, I checked out the news websites immediately — the BBC, CNN in particular, as well as newspaper sites such as The Guardian. None of the news websites were actually making the statement that Michael Jackson was dead — instead, they were reporting that he had been rushed to hospital and was not breathing. A couple of them said that he was in a coma.

I set up a live blogging event using Scribble Live to record my “in the moment” responses to the unfolding news and speculation: Michael Jackson – Dead or Alive? (The complete live blog post also updated in real time here on my blog). At the same time, I had the BBC live video stream open on another tab in my browser and was listening to their continuing commentary and updates. I tweeted my own comments on what was happening — that the news sources were not saying that he was dead although the Twitterverse were already mourning him.

The BBC news report was very careful to use phrases such as “it is reported that Michael Jackson is dead ” or “reports say”. They kept emphasising that they did not themselves yet have “independent confirmation”. What was particularly interesting to me was that it was another traditional news website that was reporting the death, the LA times, as well as an online entertainment site, TMZ. The BBC WAS at pains to say that these news sources were very well respected and were reputable sites. However, they were unwilling to make the definitive statement that Michael Jackson was dead until they had obtained their own independent confirmation.

While I was live blogging all this, a number of other people on the Internet had obviously found my site as Scribble Live was telling me that up to 38 people were “watching” my life blogging. Some of them added their own comments to say that Jackson was in a coma and others were wanting to know whether he was dead or not, and whether it was 100% confirmed that he was dead.

This was a fascinating experience. If I had been at work or in a party space and we had heard this kind of news, we’d have turned on the TV or radio and while the reports would be coming in, we’d all be wondering and chatting and talking about Michael Jackson and what was the latest moment by moment news. As I live blogged my views and what I was hearing from the BBC, it felt exactly as if I was in that sort of environment, albeit with people I didn’t personally know. It is such a human instinct to gather at times of crisis to find out what’s going on. And tools like Twitter and Scribble Live make it so easy to gather in a way that makes geography irrelevant.

In terms of the news sourcing, what was interesting to me was this. The LA Times, a respected and reputable news source, said that Michael Jackson was dead. Did I — and many others around the world — believe them? Instinctively, I was waiting for the BBC’s confirmation so at some level, I evidently did not trust the LA Times as much as I trust the BBC. From the reaction of other people online, this seems to have been their response as well. I believe that the LA Times reported the death at around 10:30 PM London time but the BBC only confirmed this fact through their independent verification at approximately 11:46 PM. So in terms of news reporting, the LA Times scooped the BBC on this story — but it was only when I heard the BBC’s, authoritative voice say “It has now been confirmed that Michael Jackson is in fact dead” that I was ready to face the reality of the pop star’s passing.

It was also interesting to note that the BBC’s live report remarked that there was a lot of rumour and speculation on the Internet and via Twitter during the few hours following Jackson’s admission to hospital. It seemed a very 21st century moment — while we were watching the news, the news was also watching us.

For me, the significance of this is event that, while many of us “ordinary folk” can publish our views and opinions online instantaneously, this kind of interaction is rife with the potential for rumour and speculation. At best, we are generally at one remove from the news. There are of course ordinary people who are caught up in extraordinary events and have the opportunity to blog or twitter about their experience in the moment — such as what has been happening in Iran — and I do not mean at all to disrespect what they’re communicating to the world about their personal experiences. I just want to emphasise that trained journalists adhere to a rigourous code of ethics, including vigourous fact checking before making their reports and this is an important and valuable function — it is sometimes better to be late with the correct facts than early with a sensational scoop.

Photo: thanks to groupieblog