I’d probably feel slightly smug, if I didn’t feel so sick.
Smug that after two weeks of me suggesting that social media might not be an unequivocally Good Thing in terms of privacy and human decency, the news has delivered the perfect example to support my view.
Unfortunately it’s hard to feel smug – hard to feel anything but sadness and nausea – when thirteen innocent people are dead.
I’m talking, of course, about Thursday’s Fort Hood shootings. Better informed and more sensitive commentators than I have written about the massacre itself and what it means for the US army, and in particular for the thousands of Muslim soldiers currently fighting – and dying – for this country. How do you even begin to process the idea of an American soldier shouting the takbir, before mowing down his comrades in arms? On American soil? At the home base of the Combat Warrior Stress Reset program? Yes, that’s definitely one for the experts to parse.
And yet, the first news and analysis out of the base didn’t come from the experts. Nor did it come from the 24-hour news media, or even from dedicated military blogs – but rather from the Twitter account of one Tearah Moore, a soldier from Linden, Michigan who is based at Fort Hood, having recently returned from Iraq.
When Major Nidal Malik Hasan began his killing spree, commanders immediately put the base into lock-down in accordance with military procedure. Movements in and out were severely restricted, as was the flow of information to the news media. Official statements from army spokesperson Lt. Gen. Robert Cone were the only way for reporters to find out what was happening, while other base personnel focused on treating the wounded, and ensuring the threat had been dealt with. Or at least that’s what the commanders thought was happening. In reality Ms Moore’s was tweeting minute-by-minute reports from inside the hospital where the wounded were being taken for treatment.
Reports like (in no particular order)…
[T]hey just brought a CART full of boxes w/transplant parts in them. Not good not good. #fthood
Ok we just saw a soldier on a stretcher w/2 armed guards walking by He didnt look like he was in great condition.
Maj Malik A Hassan. He shouldn’t have died. He should be in the worst suffering of his life. It’s too fair for him to just die. Bastard!
A FUCKING MAJOR? Are you kidding me? A MAJ! For those of ut hat don’t know, Army MAJ have pretty serious rank. Dick
Someone just started shooting in Commanche 4 which is on post housing. What are these people thinking?!?
The poor guy that got shot in the balls http://twitpic.com/oejh5
That last twitpic link was particularly amazing: it showed a cameraphone image – of a wounded soldier arriving at the hospital on a gurney – taken by Moore from inside the hospital. Unsurprisingly, Moore’s coverage was quickly picked up by bloggers and mainstream media outlets alike, something that she actively encouraged by tweeting to friends that they should pass her phone number to the press so she could tell them the truth, rather than the speculative bullshit that was hitting the wires.
There was just one problem: Moore’s information was bullshit too.
As we now know, Major Hassan was not killed, but rather captured alive. Reports of a second – and third – shooter also now appear to be inaccurate. Whether someone was shot “in the balls” hasn’t been publicly confirmed and, for the sake the of the victim’s privacy, let’s hope it never is – but the point is that many of Moore’s eye-witness reports weren’t worth the bits they were written on. They had no value whatsoever, except as entertainment and tragi-porn.
Two weeks ago, I wrote here about how the ‘real time web’ is turning all of us into inhuman egotists. How we’re increasingly seeing people at the scene of major accidents grabbing their cellphones to capture the dramatic events and share them with their friends, rather than calling 911. Last week I went even further with my doom-mongering, suggesting that the trend of adding people’s homes to Foursquare without permission was indicative of a generation that prioritised their own fun over the privacy of their friends.
In the actions of Tearah Moore at Fort Hood, we have the perfect example of both kinds of selfishness.
There surely can’t be a human being left in the civilised world who doesn’t know that cellphones must be switched off in hospitals, and yet not only did Moore leave hers on but she actually used it to photograph patients, and broadcast the images to the world. Just think about that for a second. Rather than offering to help the wounded, or getting the hell out of the way of those trying to do their jobs, Moore actually pointed a cell-phone at a wounded soldier, uploaded it to twitpic and added a caption saying that the victim “got shot in the balls”.
Her behaviour had nothing to do with getting the word out; it wasn’t about preventing harm to others, but rather a simple case of – as I said two weeks ago – “look at me looking at this.” (I don’t know about you, but if I spotted someone taking a picture of one of my friends or relatives in a hospital then they would probably need a hospital bed of their own. “Tell me, Ms Moore, exactly how did the iPhone end up in your lower intestine?”)
Perhaps fittingly, I posted some of these thoughts on Twitter yesterday, as events were still unfolding. Many people agreed with me – replying with links to the specific military codes that cover what information solidiers can share, and the HIPAA which deals with patient privacy. But plenty of others felt that by criticising Moore I was advocating censorship.
As one reply put it, sarcastically: “Yes indeed, let’s moderate twitter and vet all tweets…” Others pointed out that it was just this kind of photography and ‘citizen journalism’ that ensured that the truth got out during the Iranian elections. What about the global outrage at the famous YouTube video of Neda Agha Soltan, shown dying after being shot by (alledgedly) pro-government agents?
Yes – what of it?
For all of our talk about “the world watching”, what good did social media actually do for the people of Iran? Did the footage out of the country actually change the outcome of the elections? No. Despite a slew of YouTube videos and a couple of thousand foreign Twitter users turning their avatar green and pretending to be in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is still in power. It’s astonishing, really. Despite how successful ten million actual voters marching through Washington, London and other major cities in 2003 were in stopping the invasion of Iraq, a bit of entirely virtual cyber-posturing by foreigners didn’t lead to real change in Iran.
And so it was at Fort Hood. For all the sound and fury, citizen journalism once again did nothing but spread misinformation at a time when thousands 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.
What’s most alarming about Moore’s behaviour is that she probably thought she was doing the right thing. Certainly, looking at her MySpace page and her Twitter account (before the army finally forced her to lock it down) we see the portrait of a patriot. Someone who clearly cares a great deal about others, and who – despite the rhetorical question “remind me why I joined the army again” on her profile – is proud to serve her country. In tweeting from the scene, and calling out the media for not reporting the rumours from inside the base, I’m sure she genuinely believed she was helping get the real truth out, and making an actual difference.
And that’s precisely the problem: none of us think we’re being selfish or egotistic when we tweet something, or post a video on YouTube or check-in using someone’s address on Foursquare. It’s just what we do now, no matter whether we’re heading out for dinner or witnessing a massacre on an Army base. Like Lord of the Flies, or the Stanford Prison Experiment, as long as we’re all losing our perspective at the same time – which, as a generation growing up with social media we are – then we don’t realise that our humanity is leaking away until its too late.
As I’ve already said – and I’m even starting to bore myself now – the answer isn’t censorship (which won’t work), but rather in our social evolution catching up with the state of technology. We need to get back to a point as a society where – without thinking – we put our humanity before our ego. With that in mind, and in the hope of hurrying the process along slightly, I’m going to draw these three nay-saying columns to a close, not with yet another appeal to the better nature of social media addicts but rather with two videos that everyone should watch.
The first is a clip from This American Life which I stumbled across on the blog of the comedy writer, Graham Linehan (Father Ted, The IT Crowd). It’s a thing of beauty. And absolutely terrifying. Just watch it.
The second video is much less heartwarming, but far more terrifying – because it’s entirely real. So real in fact, that I don’t want to embed it here. I want you to make a conscious decision to click through and watch it. It’s the video of the final moments of Neda Agha Soltan’s life.
Even if you’ve seen the footage before, you should watch it again. But this time bear in mind the following: the cameraman was not a professional reporter, but rather an ordinary person, just like the victim. And what did he do when he saw a young girl bleeding to death? Did he run for help, or try to assist in stemming the bleeding? No he didn’t.
Instead he pointed his camera at her and recorded her suffering, moving in closer to her face for her agonising final seconds. For all of our talk of citizen journalism, and getting the truth out, the last thing that terrified girl saw before she closed her eyes for the final time was some guy pointing a cameraphone at her. “Look at me, looking at her, looking back at me.”
Enough with the “NSFW” Paul… unless there are boobies.
Is that really all you can say? This was such a serious article, about such a serious issue, and that’s ALL you have to say?
“NSFW” is unserious by definition, especially so when there is nothing on the page to have to worry about.
TechCrunch needs to stop using NSFW as a method of attracting using readers. It’s weak, esp when discussing topics such as this.
NSFW is the name of the column.
That’s another text I liked very much in this column. Paul Carr is every time more sensible and by far not the *social media whore* he claimed to be when he joined TC.
His voice develops into a sorely needed social media conscience. Every week I can’t wait to read his Saturday’s social media sermon.
The painful length of his posts might be part of the therapy: Please read until the end and think a little bit before you comment or twitter about it! And please put that camera phone down.
The title of the article was perfect. And the first few comments just helped prove it’s central point. I’ve gotta admit out of the several dozen stories available at the time, the ‘NSFW’ in the title gave it that advertising edge that compelled me to hit the link. I took the bait only to realize there was much more to the piece. I guess I’m as guilty as the
‘Where’s the boobies Paul ?!?’ crowd.
But ultimately I believe the voyeurism Is just an artifact. An unfortunate byproduct of a new form of communication, and absolutely nothing new.
But here’s where I disagree…
‘What good did social media actually do for the people of Iran’?. Maybe nothing immediately tangible, possibly nothing at all. But at the very least it advertised the positive potential of social media. Clay Shirky gives the best counter argument and some good examples to boot.
http://www.yout...h/0/c_iN_QubRs0
You should have used the column title “Ft. Hood shot in the balls”. It would have attracted far more readers.
he uses the f-bomb a lot, so i appreciate the NSFW warning (even if name of the column)
Until the likes of American Idol and Some-people-in-some-country’s-got-talent (I read somewhere that a poll of high school kids said over half of them put “being famous” as their #1 priority) this will never end
.
Was Fort Hood a Criminal act or Terrorism?
http://www.youp...ls.asp?pid=6456
.
It’s NSFW because if you go through the full article + video, you don’t get any work done.
Yeah, that would be true if it wouldn’t be a saturday column
Still about the death of Neda Agha Soltan, important to note there that the bystanders DID do something. The friend of the cameraman was a doctor trying to save her (though I don’t think one can do much using his hands to stop the bleeding) and other bystanders apparently got the shooter as well.
i came for the boobs
This is about innocent people dying. Grow the **** up and have some respect for the people involved and their families.
They weren’t innocent but rather soldiers who fought and killed and got killed by an enemy sympathizer. Lets call a spade a spade shall we?
Wow, what a moron. This is in Texas, not Iraq or even in Obama’s Afghanistan. It’s not even supposed to be an enemy, he wore the same camouflage, the same medals, a fought the same enemy. That is until he snapped and began the heartless killing of several men that were just ready to be through with the war and see their families. A small part of me wishes you were there when it happened. An even larger part wishes you were on the front lines. But, then again, you sound like one of that other moron’s friends… You are a shame to this country and it’s soldiers who died because some lunatic decided he didn’t want to fight as he signed up to do.
I’ll only remind you that not all were soldiers.
@John: It might be good to get your facts straight before calling me out on not calling a spade a spade:
Since when has an unborn child not been considered “innocent”?
How about a physician assistant?
Source: http://news.yah...ictim_vignettes
Really dude?! Okay, in reality no one is ever completly innocent, but they didn’t do anything to deserve their deaths. They were fighting on the same side, for the same beliefs. They were brothers and sisters in this battle. They were not enemies; therefore, they were innocent in eachother’s eyes. How are you going to claim these men adn women to be guilty?! Guilty of what?! Fighting for your safety in an unpopular war?! Risking their lives daily for the greater good of Americans?! In that case, yup they are guilty, but to kill these individuals who fight for our safety is ridiculous!
DFTT, remember?
REAAAAAAAAL MATURE!!!!!!!!
Perhaps the answer is education, education, education! The brighter our society, the more they are able to sort out truth from egoism, fantasy, and people that think they are all knowing!
Correct me if I’m wrong, @paulcarr, but I always thought NSFW referred to yourself, rather than the content of this column. Specifically to the fact you are consistently fired from jobs, and are therefore not safe for work. Or am I trying to be too clever?
I was appalled at the images from Vietnam as a youngster – I did not understand how anyone, journalist or otherwise, could stand there and point a camera at a man bleeding or on fire and DO NOTHING.
The rationalization ‘journalists observe’ struck me as the ultimate in narcisisstic cop-outs.
It appears that this pathetic pathology has spread to the general population.
People: if you see someone bleeding, dying, or on fire, GET HELP, DON’T JUST TWEETPIC IT YOU ASSHOLES. Next time it could be YOU.
Just a reality check here. “Professional” media would have been talking photos and trying to interview the wounded had they been present. Even the most compassionate photographer I ever knew shot the photo of the car wreck and THEN went over and ripped up his shirt to stop a little girl bleeding, having arrived on the scene before it was even reported.
I’d love to be able to say a professional journalist would have not spread rumors, but these days that’s a wavy line for a border too.
perhaps you should mention the horrible response from obama and how the major blogs did not cover it?
“I thought the response from Obama was horrible and I wonder why the major blogs didn’t cover it.”
Fixed.
Not that Bush was wonderful, he was far from it, but imagine if Bush had done the same thing… Media would have ripped him a new one… For the record, Bush WOULD NOT have had such a pitiful response.
As a matter of fact, George W. Bush, and Laura Bush, actually secretly visited the victims of the Fort Hood massacre, and they spent “considerable time” comforting the victims.
Where was Barack Hussein Obama? Off cooling his heels at Camp David, apparently.
Disagree all you want about Bush’s policies and conduct while he was in office, but you can’t doubt his sincerity and humanity. For the current occupant of the White House…not so much.
Did you really have to include “Hussein”? My name’s Jack, but I’m certainly no Jack the Ripper. I almost saw your point up until there.
when you talk about W’s “humanity”, you might be overlooking the whole “started a big war in Iraq and directly cost more Americans lives as a result than any other president in modern history” bit…
Oh way to pick and choose.
How about Bush pretending that people weren’t dying at war by not visiting the bodies or going to the funerals as Obama just did recently?
This is such a stupid thing to be judging either President by. I can’t believe you guys are seriously debating this. Neither person is a monster, and neither person likes death. They just deal with it differently (and in many ways identically), and have different pressures and different situations they have to keep in mind at the same time.
Grow up.
“…you can’t doubt his sincerity and humanity”…??? Where were you from 2001-2008?? Do you have any idea how may civilian Iraqi HUMANS are dead because of this “sincere humanitarian???” Not to mention 4362 of your fellow Americans who went there to “defend your freedom” (actually to defend Cheney’s money). Wake up!!
check this out and read the comments folks. and stop drinking kool-aid please, this is AMERICA.
http://www.yout...h?v=T0hiw8iXdMM
Checked it out—the comment by ”
FlagThisMuz” is typical of those who are comfortable with the “L” word. Those folks also seem comfortable with the “N” word, the “F” word (no, not f*ck, moron) and other labels that allow you to lump people together in groups that you can hate, rather than dealing with them as individuals. Seems to me that it’s this type of person who is really drinking the kool-aid.
Good point, Obama is obviously the root of all evil.
I’m sure he was a key investigator in what happened and must have botched it somehow.
The shooter was probably one of those Kenyan sympathizers. Where is that birth certificate and MY bailout check!
What a fucktard.
This is a tech blog, not Politico, not WorldNetDaily, not the Huffington Post. Keep politics out of this.
@warren you are a douche.
really, you are.
if all we can discuss on techcrunch is how much is Twitter worth and how many hours is it offline today, then, we are pitiful, stupid little monkeys (Vonnegut).
PLEASE LORD JESUS/ALLAH/ANYBODY, make Twitter a paid service. Fill it full of ads and take the masses out of the equation.
They are not up for the job.
They are not evolved enough.
They will screw up each and every time.
They’ll watch the ads and love the digital coupons, just don’t let them type anymore.
I beseech ye’ (or, whatever the phrase is?)
TWITTER has added no value to the World. It has not improved it one bit. BFD, some information flowed from lands-of repressive regimes; it always does. Perhaps the “illusions” Twitter encourages do more harm than good – that is the point of the article, yes? Well worth considering.
Just as YOUTUBE has not made the World better, it has only shortened attention spans, TWITTER is worthless when it comes to dialogue and actual social interaction.
WAR IS PEACE
TWITTER IS SOCIAL
A generation of Fail Whales is upon us — raised on Twitter and mistaking digital personas for Societal interaction.
@endofworld
Thx Twtr.
Oh, one more time, @warren is a douche.
@Marcy, you are the douche. My comment was in response to the parent, who wanted to turn this into a discussion about Obama. My point was that this is being done elsewhere. Why don’t you take in the full contxt before you go spewing venom to people you don’t know and can’t see?
Paul, this was an excellent article that really questions the value and ethics of citizen journalism. You really stand out as one of the more distinguished reporters at TC. Well done.
@warren nice move to sidestep your comment. You cannot (and should not) tell people what they can, and can’t discussion or decide you have the exclusive right to dictate the shape of the discussion.
I know, I’m guilty of it here, since I’m suggesting you should not tell people what you think they may not say; while that is an inherent contradiction, there’s no way around it. Sorry.
The “full context” is that this is a very political discussion about technology, social discourse, and the impact on politics and persuasion.
I suspect the person you were advising to go elsewhere was trying (not very well) to make some connection between official statements and unofficial news, which is well within the overall theme of the Post. Slamming them is not the right approach.
Nothing is off limits. Let people rant. Better that they rant here where THERE IS FEEDBACK than within their little bubbles of Followers and suchlike.
There’s just about nothing more annoying in a Comment Thread than those who tell others not to post. It’s a public forum, and if people go off-topic, well, that’s their right. We don’t need the comment-gestapo.
What’s terrific about this Post is that it brought out many voices. Maybe no one learned from one another, maybe they did.
Oh, by the way, what are you doing to make the world a better place, @marcy?
Yes, Marcy, you are right–Warren is indeed a feminine hygiene product and Twitter is for Twits. Why do we need to know when Miley has lunch, or Paris poops??
It truely is a sad state we are in. Technology is slowly taking away our humanity.
Technology, sadly, isn’t taking anything from us. Humanity as a whole isn’t nearly as altruistic as it is idealized to be or have been. We allow our own humanity to degrade by our insensitivity in regards to current events; In reference to the Kitty Genovese stabbing events in 1964, technology was hardly thriving then as it is today. The bystander effect existed then, as it exists now, and we as people have to deal with the consequences and effects that our actions, or inactions, may bring about. Instead, we, as humans, deflect towards technology as a scapegoat.
Technology only does what we tell it to; if that is to stand-by and watch someone bleed to death, then so be-it.
This is such a strong and thought-provoking article, and I really appreciate the perspective it puts on things. However I must agree with the above poster that the Kitty Genovese attack, for instance, is a prime example that many people have always been more voyeuristic than altruistic. The rise of cameraphones and social networking I believe has made very little difference. People have always slowed down to gape at accidents, now they just allow others to do so too.
And I do believe that Citizen Journalism can be a good thing when handled properly. A few months back a guy was standing on the roof of a house opposite mine, begging for someone to fetch a camera to tell the public as the police threatened him with guns and stun-gunned his dog in an inhuman attempt to make him come down. He promised he would as soon as someone fetched his prescription medication, but the police shouted abuse and refused to help him. There was nothing I could do to help him-the police were holding everyone back, waving guns, and shouting at everyone. All anyone could do would have been to make the incident public. I didn’t have a camera available at the time, but I will always wish I had been able to do what he asked, because I believe that the inhumanity of that situation had already taken place, but documenting it just might have helped.
I think this article is very special, but sadly I think it has more to say of basic human nature than the rise of social networking.
I wish people who cite the Kitty Genovese murder as an example that people are generally more voyeuristic than altruistic would learn more about the facts. The original report of 38 do-nothing eyewitnesses was horribly inaccurate. There might have been 3 eyewitnesses; at least 2 of them did see to it that the police were notified. (One, a young boy, got his father to call; a second got a neighbor to call.)
For starters, read more at http://fwd4.me/3N5
Paul, thanks for this insightful piece. It’s frustrating enough to see professional camera crews misjudge the line between gathering information and interfering with emergency response. The we now have (or, quite possibly, *are*) millions who feel empowered to take on that task for themselves is daunting indeed.
I’m equally concerned that some people think that this post, at roughly 2000 words, is too long. If you’re among them, do all of us a favor: Pull to the side of the information superhighway now and then to read with more effort than it takes to skim, actually process what you take in, and then respond with something more substantial than a tweet.
Complex topics can’t be covered, nor can compelling arguments be made, in sound bites.
Depending on who you ask, that the Kitty Genovese case is a bit of an urban myth:
http://www.onth...segments/127346
I’m not refuting the general principle, but that case is over-cited as an example of it.
Fully agree. Technology is not the problem. People are people. When there is a car crash people slow down to look at what’s happening, causing delays to the emergency services and not helping. Why? so that they can see what is happening and provide a better account for their friends. This already happens and technology is not stopping of increasing it.
What technology IS doing is bringing visibilty to situations where there was none before.
Also, are you proposing that we should ban all journalism in these situations? And if not why is someone (a “real” journalist) somehow exempt from thinking about resolving the situation over someone else (a “citizen”)? Isn’t a Journalist a citizen too? The fact it most people are voyeurs and bystanders and with or without a camera they would continue to be.
There is not proof that I can see that these citizen journalist would have done anything better if they weren’t “reporting” on the situation.
But thanks anyway for the article. The comments are interesting again. But the genie is out of the bottle. What does the writer suggest? We ban cameraphones? We making reporting when someone is in danger an offense? Of course not. Instead he asks everyone to be as clever and as thoughtful as he and think before they report. Presumably leaving special people like him to report? I wonder what he would do in the same situation?
Twitter and blogging are new information mediums and I trust that people will quickly learn to mentally filter them (as they should have always done with all journalism). If anything, an increasing level of skeptism in the quality of information we receive in general may be the most positive byproduct of citizen journalism.
I am neither citing the number of people involved in the attack, as it is generally irrelevant; the purpose of my post is to point out that people have had bystander-ism for a very, very long time. All it takes is one person not calling-in or helping aid in an attack of that magnitude to show that just like with Ms. Soltan, one person stood, unaiding, taking record of the attack. There were multiple people ALREADY aiding Ms. Soltan but in a case like this, I’m not sure there was anything ANYONE could have done to aid her. But the bystander-ism is noted by the cameraperson. I’m also not stating that we ban social journalism in situations like this, I simply was in protest at the OP’s statement of “OMG TECHNOLOGY IS OUT OF CONTROL!!111!1″. Social journalism, should everything already be under some aspect of control, shouldn’t be banned/eliminated; as it sheds perspective, not truth, on a perspective that may already be skewed by the government or other controlling factors.
Jason
isn’t it the same thing happening when people used to pull out their videocamera to shoot accidents, or reality TV chasing criminals with a helicopter?
who ever said that we social media would replace real journalism? there was a reason we have newspapers. just because anyone can shout doesn’t mean we have to listen to everybody.
Fantastic. Your take on this I mean. The culture of “I’ and “Me” has usurped what was left of the most basic remnants of human decency it seems. Of course there are fine lines to be drawn everywhere, but, per your last paragraph, which of us wants to watch ourselves being watched in our last fucking moments?
Well put sir. Let us all take pause before posting our observations to the world, particularly when they affect our neighbour.
I’d like to expand on Don’s excellent comments, but wonder about this dissenting voice in TechCrunch. After all, TechCrunch is a heavy promoter of the communication channel of minimum contemplation and maximal blather that is twitter. Disingenuous columnists such as MG Siegler have waxed poetic about how amazingly essential and unstoppable that service it. Yet all it promotes is shallow over thoughtful, subjective over objective.
The notions of collaboration, editorial integrity, objectivity, fact checking, those are all thrown out the window with Twitter ‘journalism’. And TechCrunch has hyped the cultural significance of the quips and lies that it facilitates.
excellent post
This is an interesting argument, and, in truth, citizen journalism is a double-edged sword.
I believe that if Ms. Moore presented the information in a more serious and concerning manner, it wouldn’t warrant this criticism. But, her actions clearly call for criticism so that future events can be handled better.
I will say that the good of citizen journalism far outweighs the bad. And with that, we must take the good and the bad, and interpret the information as we go.
My best wishes to those the families of the deceased. This should never happen, no matter where in the world we are!
Oddly enough, this behavior is exactly what we expect and value in professional journalists. If a CNN reporter was in Tehran at the time, he would be castigated if it put down his camera to help a victim; it’s the job of the photographer to put aside his personal feelings and try to capture the scene for a wider audience.
Why should we blame the so-called “citizen journalists” when they do exactly the same thing?
+1 Glen and…
+1 on this interesting and most appropriate article.
But to write off “citizen journalism” as being a panacea and “worse than the alternative” is simply unfair.
As Glen mentioned, those citizens who agree to be citizen journalists may sometimes feel that their reporting need (and ROI, value of the information) exceeds the macro requirement of the situation itself. So… yes, the bigger message about the outrages of her death was more valuable than her (sadly, already gone) life.
The difference is she is not qualified as evidenced by the inaccurate information she reported.
Time moves so quickly…perhaps this means we’ve already moved into the era of the “citizen Andrea Mitchell.”
In fairness, though, in a fluid situation like the one at Fort Hood, even “qualified,” professional journalists can get caught up in the rumors and report false information.
We can hope that their professionalism keeps them away from rumors and unverified information, but if we want our news as it happens, then we’re going to have to put up with short-term inaccuracies, whether they come from the pros or the ams.
You make a great point. Who knows how many professional photo-journalists have witnessed massacres before this moment, and possibly resulted in many more deaths.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
That, in itself, is a debate of its own.
Agreed!
And how is this different from our current media streams where they “call political races” with 1% reporting… or how local news just covers murder and things relative to their ethnocentric viewpoints…
There’s always a race to be *first*… in fact, I would have chuckled had the first comment been “first!”…
The races that get called when polls close or at 1% reporting are foregone conclusions, confirmed by election day exit polls and voter interviews. It’s perfectly statistically sound to do this in the cases for which it is used.
Dewey defeats Truman. ‘Nuff said.
“Why should we blame the so-called “citizen journalists” when they do exactly the same thing?”
…because s/he is a ‘citizen’ first?
because when everyone’s a journalist, no one is a human.
I don’t think this “citizen journalist” really did anything wrong. You can’t see any details of the victims. In addition she’s not a professional so any media news outlet who picks up on this should keep that in mind as part of their own professional code of conduct. She’s just a “dumb pipe” feeding what she sees and hears to the masses.
If you followed her postings you’re just as culpable. She’s just a person with a cellphone and a twitter account and in no way does that represent agreement to a professioanl journalists supposed code of conduct.
Also I don’t know about how it is in Ft Hood but around here cell phones are allowed again outside of operating rooms and trauma centers. judging from that picture she was in a waiting room.
Slamming her just reeks of elitism. Seriously makes me wonder about the human race when we villify someone for exhibiting standard human behavior.
Dude, does the fact that it is ’standard human behavior’ make it right? Standard or not, we vilify people for acting immorally, and yes, I think taking pictures of wounded people in a hospital for one’s own self-aggrandizement is immoral.
Slamming her just reeks of elitism.
Are you new around here, or did you just take off clothespin off your nose?
Paul Carr, elitist? Quelle surprise!
Actually, professional journalists have been called out at documenting suffering in an exploitative way plenty of times, and it’s a source of debate and conflict within that professional community. War journalists regularly admit to the toll such dilemmas cause them, rather than celebrate it.
Excellent article Paul. Definitely something to think about that a lot of people bypass.
But I think there are two sides to the story and I don’t think Citizen Journalism is a bad thing. But like anything else, in the wrong hands, or the uninformed hands, you get nothing less than bad information.
I am surprised that people are surprised that people behave like people.
The understanding (and use of) social media is far less the understanding of the technology, but the understanding of people, whether the camera is carried by an ordinary citizen, or by a government or its propaganda machine.
In the video of Neda Agha Soltan, she is surrounded by people helping her, capturing the event made her death vivid to thousands of people and may help a cause.
I remember how footage taken in apartheid South Africa helped bring the situation to the attention of the world.
Not each individual shot or each individual bit of footage – but the principle of having multiple sources of news – not only the official one.
To clarify – citizen journalists create a richness to the coverage – a perspective that is different to the official line or the line of “aligned” news organisations. Its unlikely always to be the best, unlikely to be from anything than that parents perspective.
BUT – thats a strength.
Police: As many as 20 present at gang rape outside school dance – CNN.com http://bit.ly/2iqw2a
It’s not just technology.
You say this is an example of how citizen journalism can’t handle the truth, but what you write is about how “professional” journalism is botching it. If one person makes twitter or facebook or blog comments, it is unremarked. If it’s picked up by big news organizations, then it’s citizen journalists who are the problem? How is that so different from the press interviewing people at the scene (such as Tearah Moore) and then quoting them? The reality is that “professional” journalism has a very poor track record for accuracy and decency. That’s for many reasons, including a desire for sensationalism, but a big reason is sloppy research usually consisting of believing what one source or group of sources says and not digging deeper. How is it any different if the source from twitter or from a direct interview? Your complaint is that big media gave this person a platform and the blame for that goes not to social media but, old school media.
Seriously, what do you people have against paragraphs?
+1
And other standard bits of grammar.
Paul, I appreciate you taking the time to think through the changes that smartphones with camera and an Internet connection are wreaking in society. You write thoughtfully, with insight, and, in terms of preserving the rights of patients to privacy, with an understanding of the laws that pertain to privacy and basic courtesy.
Where I’m left frustrated is in your consistent suggestion that those who are watching should be doing something, whether in the hospital or, in the case of Neda, on the streets. As a former EMT, let me say that the last thing I want is a bystander trying to help. Perhaps as a former print journalist, the last thing you want is for citizens to jump in and document?
The example of Neda seems needlessly sensationalistic and as such, not worthy of the point you were trying to make.
I don’t doubt that seasoned correspondents, armed with an understanding of the ethics and laws that pertain to reporting, are needed to convey information from the battlefield or to analyze the meaning of the trends that confront us.
I do wonder whether, however, there aren’t many situations where the “citizen journalists” you deride are providing an important function in the newsgathering ecosystem, whether it’s reporting national disasters, disease, voting irregularities or consumer sentiment.
Now that you’re done with your “NSFW” columns, would you care to seriously consider whether models of “hyperlocal” journalism that marry traditional media to online platforms might have a chance of success?
I agree regarding the use of Neda as an example — it looked like there was a group of men attending to her, I don’t fault the camera-man, and further that image made a huge impact in the world… weighing the pros and cons of that is not a straightforward exercise.
As far as accuracy in reporting, I point to the Balloon Boy incident as a case where the MSM got it wrong. Just because a citizen journalist at the scene got some facts wrong at the outset, she was doing real-time reporting. And yes, some of her tweets were pretty amateur and grotesque. But, I think that the more frequent these situations, the more all social media users will learn about the norms, expectations and courtesies… but we’ll always have our Paparazzis, whether citizen or paid.
“As a former EMT, let me say that the last thing I want is a bystander trying to help.”
Alexander, there are many ways of helping, even after responders have arrived. One is to stay out of the way of the people who know what to do. Another is to help keep other bystanders not only out of the way but also as calm as possible. I have never been an EMT, but I have been first on the scene a few times. In those instances, I made sure to give the first person not needed for more urgent action a specific task: Explain to anyone else who arrived before the EMTs what was going on, tell them what specific help we needed (if any), and encourage them to move along if they could not offer that help. It seemed to make it easier for the EMTs and police when they arrived: People stepped back as their duties were taken over by the pros and, as soon as an officer or EMT had time to answer, asked if they were free to leave.
Cliff, that’s thoughtful. In my limited experience, you provide the standard of care to which you are certified and are able to deliver, ceding primary responsibility to others as they arrive on scene. I couldn’t do much more than to stem bleeding, stabilize injuries, provide oxygen and transport people. That scenario changes if you’re in a wilderness situation. In all of that, communication with the nearest hospital and ER docs available is crucial. You’re right – transferring information to both medical professionals and law enforcement is something a bystander can and should do. And to some extent, that is precisely what a member of the public equipped with a cameraphone can contribute, despite the vigor with which Carr has chosen to deride that role. I agreed with him on any number of points – and the video from This American Life was deeply affecting on this point, in terms of what becoming an observer can do to our involvement in what we are filming. My intention in making that comment was not to suggest that observers couldn’t play a useful role in a crisis. It was to say that when there are qualified staff on scene, documenting what is happening in the absence of mainstream journalists may be useful for those that follow – including news outlets that may use video or audio gleaned on site. I agree with Paul that running such media should not be done without a full understanding of the ethics or privacy rights involved. Unfortunately, many tabloids have had a poor grasp of either for decades.
I have to agree with this. In the Neda case, there were people helping. There was a man that was with her and we find out later the person treating her is actually a doctor.
Perhaps it seems callous to record it but I think there is something to be said about this bit of “journalism” being recorded and released to the world. To some it may just be shocking and grotesque. But to many others it showed the reality of the brutality of what was going on in Iran that words alone could not convey.
I think the problem also lies with the fact that film/photos don’t give the unalloyed truth, but may think they do. There is an old adage in Law Enforcement that if you take statements from twelve eye witnesses to an incident you end with thirteen different truths: what each person says happened, and what really happened. Social media does give each of those witnesses a chance to promulgate their “true” as the real one, clouding the issue.
Where is the middle ground though? The media has flaws, numerous ones, and has been bought, sold, corrupted, unethical and inept all on its own.
Citizen journalism may be flawed in many ways but ask yourself if the mainstream media always truly serves the public interest? I don’t think it always does and whilst it does not then citizen journalism not only has a place in the world but may actually be critical to ensure that the truth is heard.
I’ve been reading about the predator drone attacks on five wedding parties this morning.
It’s blood on Obama’s hands. He could have ordered a stop to all Predator drone attacks on Jan 20th. But he didn’t. Murderer!
Yeah – Bush would never have allowed it! Oh – wait.
Whilst we’re at it – is that communist still trying to force a fairer health system down your throats? Crazy fool.
I agree her actions were irresponsible and that as a society we need to hold each other to a higher standard. However, during any crisis, I would rather receive live unfiltered information from ordinary people on the scene (even if it means a level of inaccuracy and taking it with a grain of salt) than wait for the whitewashed “official” accounts from military, government, police etc.
Of course, it’s the job of mainstream media to question those official reports and investigate/bring us the whole truth. And while I absolutely don’t question the media’s desire to do so, can they? With newsrooms shrinking by the day, will they?
QFT
Paul, a lot of respect for you.
I think your cautionary warning is a good one. We should take a step back and consider our shifting personal and social boundaries.
That doesn’t mean you should condemn the entirety of citizen journalism, and in fact you haven’t presented a case for that. I co-founded a citizen journalism non-profit called The UpTake, and we’re proud to have produced stories not seen elsewhere, either because corporate media outlets didn’t have enough monetary interest (MN senate recount) or we simply had more people on the street with cameras (RNC).
A single eyewitness twitter report from inside an army base, or a single child’s statement that his brother was in the balloon — unverified reports from a single source should always be met with healthy skepticism.
We simply have more raw news and opinion streaming over and around us. We have to be smarter news consumers and triangulate the truth.
It’s true that social media is putting this “news room” mentality into all of us. It’s not clear yet where that will take society, but it will change it. Will it become acceptable to behave this way?
As with other man-made tools, “technology” itself isn’t responsible for harm done. It is the people who use it.
And for some reason I can’t get these cheesy 80s song lyrics out of my head now:
“We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who
Comes on at five
She can tell you bout the plane crash with a gleam
In her eye
Its interesting when people die-
Give us dirty laundry
Can we film the operation?
Is the head dead yet?
You know, the boys in the newsroom got a
Running bet
Get the widow on the set!
We need dirty laundry”
“..get back to a point as a society where – without thinking – we put our humanity before our ego.”
I was the main person behind @FTHoodshootings, the Austin American-Statesman’s Twitter account. I saw the tweets by Ms. Moore on Thursday afternoon/night but didn’t retweet her. I did retweet some other posts that were made by people who were in Fort Hood, but they were not tweets that needed to be verified (people just saying they were scared or that the mood on the base was tense, etc.) If you are a blogger or a mainstream media organization, you can use citizen journalist reports, but you better verify anything that needs verification and you ought to respect privacy rights. Use your judgment, just like you do when you gather information from any other source. Citizen journalists can be a good source for information. Journalists just need to do their jobs.
Well, it’s all good, what you’re saying, but there’s quite a bit of self-righteous indignation there, too, meant to vaunt your own class and your own self.
Say, we’re not the ones who thought up this term “citizens’ journalism,” we citizens. It was concocted by those on the left in Indymedia who thought that “The People” should take over media. As per usual with such extreme ideological movements, the citizens of that sort weren’t very civilized.
And..There is some value in these tweets, even if they are not about citizenry or journalism. They are just a source, the kind that a reporter might interview among many. You learn that this shooter is a major. True, no? You learn that someone has been wounded and is still alive. True, no? And you still didn’t refute that in fact “no one was shot in the balls”. And she conveyed her opinion about the events, “this shooter should have died” — well, deal with it. And lots of people thought he had died, when he hadn’t, why pick on a Twitterer?
In fact, perhaps what is lurking underneath all your botheration is the idea that a Muslim has shot his fellow soldiers, this has terrible ramifications that you want to leave to others to “parse,” and none of these conclusions are politically correct. So you are rechanneling your rage at *that* to the inept twitterer.
I realize you’re not calling for censorship, but you’re calling for some sort of netiquette that you and Andrew Keen (you’re more similar than different) get to decide for the rest of us, and I’m not playing. You don’t get to.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. You get on twitter to hustle your articles and thoughts, so does everybody else get on it to hustle what they hustle.
SOOOO typical of one of the paid-for Silicon Valley elite to complain about technology’s inhumanity when displayed *by the users* and never look at the people *who made this technology* who are only celebrated.
Wikipedia shuts down entries of people who are freshly dead to prevent all kinds of weird stuff that happens. It is not beyond rationality to suggest that Twitter could also block tweets from a national tragedy that appeared inappropriate or spread dangerous rumours on an emergency basis. They are a private company with discretion as such, fulfilling a public role.
and as for the person who shot the video of Neda. What do you think was really possible to do on a square in Tehran in terms of getting medical aid to a severely wounded person? Sometimes all that is possible is being a witness.
Remember Akhmatova’s, “Can you describe all this?”
REQUIEM
No, not under the vault of alien skies,
And not under the shelter of alien wings –
I was with my people then,
There, where my people, unfortunately, were.
1961
Instead of a Preface
In the terrible years of the Yezhov terror, I spent seventeen months in the prison lines of Leningrad.
Once, someone “identified” me. Then a woman with bluish lips standing behind me, who of course, had never heard me called by name before, woke up from the stupor to which everyone had succumber and whispered in my ear (everyone spoke in whispers there):
“Can you describe this?”
And I answered, “Yes, I can.”
Then something that looked like a smile passed over what had once been her face.
Also, as for their being more than one shooter or for Hasan being dead, that’s what officials were telling the public – it wasn’t exactly speculation.
Kudos on an astute post.
This is exactly what crossed my mind when I saw the last frame of this front page Digg.com submission: http://digg.com/d316s3c
What a sad state of affairs.
Bravo Carr!
Just a thought.
The Twitter account of one Tearah Moore, has but 20 or so followers, and she is following not much more. Yes, it is true that the information is accessible to a wider audience (when they find it), but by and large, one tweets for one’s own network, not the wider audience. Let’s not forget that.
By its very nature, real-time coverage of real-time events is not conducive to exhaustive analysis. It is much more caught up in the *emotion* of the moment. Analysis comes later. Which means its no longer real-time … which is what *real* journalists do. They check the facts, strip out emotion, and convey the essence of the story. It takes some doing, to step back from the emotion of the moment, and be precisely analytical.
I’m not condoning her actions. Just trying to understand the context.
I’m glad you’re providing a needed corrective to the bandwagon of citizen journalism here. It’s dangers to the individuals involved do need to be addressed. The hubris involved in the self-justification necessary to shelve one’s human compassion in service of some nebulous higher cause is fundamentally not much different from the one motivating Hasan’s dastardly murders, although the degree is hardly comparable.
On the other hand, your argument of re-injecting some basic humanity into the social evolution our new technologies, as well thought-out as it is, captures mainly the perpetrator’s side of the equation. I have faith that the new media competencies required to navigate the explosion of journalistic perspectives now possible are already well underway on the side of the receivers of such information. We must quickly learn to suspend judgment of the content of a given source until its reliability can be evaluated properly. We must learn to say “I just heard a tweet that…”, or “I hope this isn’t true, but I heard…” until either a more trusted source can confirm, or the multiplicity of less reliable sources comes to a consensus of sorts. I have confidence we’re learning to do just that.
Of course at 8:16 I meant to say “there” not “their.” It has been a long past couple of days. I don’t fault for a witness at the scene to be breaking some rules of journalism and ethics. Or even human dignity. I do fault journalists who run with material without using good judgment.
Thank you for bringing this perspective. Yes, it is about journalists doing their jobs.
What job is Carr doing then, banging on these people that journalists would simply sort through even if there were no mediation of Twitter, but they were even on the scene.
He is performing the job of opinion columnist, for a class of people who have made a technology that they want to control and not have other people use in ways they don’t like.
“…get back to a point as a society where – without thinking – we put our humanity before our ego.” When and where did this ’society’ exist? I’ve never seen it. As far as reporting goes, professional reporters have not participated in saving lives or getting involved for the sake of the story, picture, or video. Now that it is amateurs you want to point fingers? The professional media does this all the time. It’s OK because they are professional? Give me a break. Some reporters are crappy and selfish and some are fantastic. Do you really expect amateurs to be any different? To be more noble??? She was right to do her best at reporting what she saw. People will learn over time how to do it better. It is too new now and people are learning how. The picture that she took was amazing and brought the story home more than anything else I have seen in mainstream media. I leave you with one thought, who was first blamed by the media for the Oklahoma City bombings? Think about that while you re-read your self-serving post designed more for Google-juice then any noble cause on your part.
Depends on whether she was on duty, I’d guess.
Bull.
The myth that journalists run around pursuing this or that story while watching other people die is pure celluloid fantasy, and that you believe it says a great deal about you and your appetite for movies, not journalism.
In the reams of newspapers published throughout history, and the miles of film aired, and years of radio broadcast — sure. Sure there’s been the exceedingly rare example, somewhere, where some guy put his story or photo first. Head on over to Google and find it. But don’t let’s pretend you’re describing reality.
Not sure what side of the argument to take.
Having “citizen journalism” is and isn’t such a bad thing. Sure you will have attention whores who enjoy doing cartwheels in bikinis on the beach because they want the attention.
On the other hand conventional media is often unable to get the first hand account of many news items because conventional media cannot be everywhere.
I agree that this solider violated the patient’s privacy but unless this person is a healthcare professional I do not believe HIPPA applies.
Let’s take the example of the Neda Youtube link that was posted. Having a camera stuck in her face isn’t the most palatable thing to do as she is dying but on the other hand if that video wasn’t taken then a lot of the awareness regarding what has happened in Iran would not have occurred. Neda’s publicized death, although tragic, put a face on the Iranian election issues.
So on the one had I think citizen journalism is a good thing — a lot of images/video/commentary that conventional media is unable to obtain is now obtainable thanks to technology. Unfortunately, sometimes it may be obtained in an unconventional manner. But that is what citizen journalism is all about: it is unconventional.
Would I want to have a cellphone camera stuck in my face when I am dying? No. But if the video goes viral and sends a message to the masses that something is wrong and needs to be corrected based on my death then I saw stick 100 cellphone cameras and 2000 microphones to video and audio tape my final death moans.
“How do you even begin to process the idea of an American soldier shouting the takbir, before mowing down his comrades in arms? On American soil?”
So, you wanna mow’em all down before such thing occurs again? What kinda comment is that?
Hey Paul, would you be pissed if I tried to get @missTearah here to share her side of the story?
I think her opinion might be a valuable addition to your story.
It’s not just citizen journalists.
It’s everyone who goes for the camera or the pen before trying to take action the save other human beings. Professional journalists are just as guilty of being more concerned about the story than saving someone’s life.
The only solution to this will be to instill into people the value of simple human decency.
An impressive, thought-provoking and disturbing post. I don’t have anything to add other than to say I’m glad I had a chance to read it. Thanks.
Well said, Dug!
Oh man! This is disturbing.
An entire communication form damned because of the actions of one person. Nicely done. I guess this long form entirely removed opinion article isn’t egoist at all.
Nicely backed up the recollection of small children not yet educated in media studies too by the way. There are so many exact stories without those cameras. Gee, what a stretch.
As for recording or photographing a person in distress/ danger and not helping – Journalists have been criticised about this forever and a day. Need I remind you of the photo of the baby and the vulture, the little naked girl running down the road in Vietnam!? I’m not saying it is ok, but your bias is outrageously obvious and this is one hell of a skewed article.
Sure, there may be some excellent ‘citizen journalists’ out there. But I’m getting sick of the self-righteous piffle that seeks to disguise the truth: Most citizen journalists are narcissists with Internet access.
They’re not good journalists. And frankly I’m not so sure about the citizen aspect, either.
What makes an “excellent citizen journalist”?
If you’re that good, I think you can drop the ‘citizen’ part and just be a full-on journalist.
I agree with the rest of what you said though and I think it’s depressing that the social media fellatio world is so quick to celebrate narcissism.
You made several good points I just do not agree with them.
For me, I’ll take on the scene tweets, images, observations from anyone. We are adult enough to vet them appropriately.
News gets so slanted “after” the fact by those in control that it is better to have on the spot reports.
The whole spectator/objectivity/camera/watch-me-watching-this angle misses a larger point. The larger point is that democracy is mob rule. The more enfranchised more people become, the more we’re essentially allowing the inmates to run the asylum. Institution is important, but in our rush to “democratize the communications culture” we’re empowering the mob to tear down institution along with the institutions.
Great thought — very interesting.
What’s the solution, then, though? Is the simple truth that we’re not really all that fervent about democracy?
Is it treasonous to say that, well, maybe society runs a lot smoother when the smartest citizens are at an advantage?
All uncomfortable to say aloud. And yet all relevant, I think.
In my opinion, the solution is Hamiltonian. Institution has value. Institutions are created by people with vision and the temerity to be leaders. Institution is destroyed by those with the temerity to be demagogues. I think the change we’re undergoing is in many ways a recapitulation of the changes that happened in the 18th century. If the changes that took place then are seen as instructive, we can expect things to happen approximately analogous to the French or the American revolutions.
I realize that’s a bit obtuse, but I think that the more that popular resentment to institution is stoked, the greated the potential for this revolution to be marked by guillotines. Ken Wilber suggests that evolution is both transcendental AND inclusive. We need to remember what is best about what has brought us to where we are, so that we can build upon it, rather than tear it all to the ground in our efforts to transcend it.
I see your point of view, and it is a very delicate issue – while situations like the one you describe are sad, I also have to say that as recently as two weeks ago, we had a huge refinery explosion here in Puerto Rico and for all of two hours, Twitter was the only source of information. It happened at 12:20AM, the TV news were all sleeping, AM radio was offline, it wasn’t until 2AM that a FM Radio station got someone out in the field and reporting on the situation. By 3 AM some TV stations were sending out reporters.
But it was the hundreds of Puerto Rican twitter users that poured in the witness reports: huge fire, explosion heard in Cataño, sighted at refinery. The only downside were the early reports of a downed plane, which after 5 minutes was found to be false thanks to a live tracking website.
So yes, these growing pains will take a while to smooth out until we can find the perfect balance.
@Paul — this is one of the most decent and human posts appearing on a tech blog.
Thanks.
Here’s your problem though — you botched the headline. You kind of cheated and tried to make this about “citizen journalism” (which focused many of the Comments in that direction — but, really, your post is NOT about citizen journalism, it is about the new technology toys people have and where they have not evolved enough to learn how to use them, within boundaries that are crucial to retain social ties.
In fact, “social media” tools and technologies could be the unwinding of society? Ironic?
It’s worth considering.
The individual, the ego, the star, the rockstar who makes no music, the citizen journalist, the “personal brand” (despicable notion) the “me, me, me’ former Governor turned Facebook pos(t)er, etc. etc. etc. all turn attention inward and away from society, community, connections, which all evaporate. Poof.
The real-time web is not “evil” per se, but, humans are not evolved enough to utilize it well.
Can it cause more harm than good?
Is it worth a Billion Buckeroos?
I don’t know.
But, I am pleased that Techcrunch ventured into territory here with this post that no one else has really explored (akin to Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” this post is the blog version of “Documenting Ourselves to Death”)…
Anyway, thanks.
Really.
Sad thing is, this Post will not gain as much attention as the Twitter/Developer rant about SF…Maybe if you changed the headline? Something akin to:
LET’S HOPE TWITTER FAILS!
Documenting Ourselves to Death.
Sounds right.
How would the Wikipedia entry be revised from this below? Where, 140 text characters of print typography, compared to Television, well, makes Television seem downright profound?
http://en.wikip...selves_to_Death
“form excludes the content,” that is, a particular medium can only sustain a particular level of ideas. Rational argument, an integral component of print typography, cannot be conveyed through the medium of television because “its form excludes the content.” Because of this shortcoming, politics and religion get diluted, and “news of the day” is turned into a commodity. The presentation most often de-emphasizes quality; all data becomes burdened to the far-reaching need for entertainment.
Here’s the translation for DOCUMENTING OURSELVES TO DEATH (someone should write the book):
“form excludes the content,” that is, a particular medium can only sustain a particular level of ideas. Rational argument, an integral component of conversation and text-based media (in excess of 140 characters), cannot be conveyed through the medium of the real-time, social media web, because “its form excludes the content.” Because of this shortcoming, politics and religion get diluted, and “news of the moment” is turned into a commodity with an emphasis on the Poster’s personal billboard value and their quest to be part of a Trending Topic. The presentation most often de-emphasizes quality; all data becomes burdened to the far-reaching need for entertainment and self-promotion…”
For people to not recognize that the decline of journalism and Content with substance, combined with the emergence of short-form Fluff, is actually harmful to us as a society, is #endofworld sadness. There is no awesomeness in this evolution.
Fortunately, I project that TWITTER et al will be taken over as a roving Billboard for the extreme Right in the US (it’s on it’s way already, you just don’t Follow them), it is an ideal platform for no substance and short form ideology. Hopefully, there will be something else for the rest of us.
@nobody your post completely overlooks the underlying reality here: this is a post from a paid-for columnist of a leading industry publication that itself unabashedly invests in technology and also makes or breaks start-ups on what they publish about them. It’s something quite a bit more than “journalism” we have here in the phenomenon of techcrunch.com itself.
Your positing the idea that some people in Silicon Valley get to make technology and hire other power users of it who are “evolved,” whereas the rest of us are “not evolved”.
How does that work?
Another application of the fallacy of social Darwinism.
@profoky It seems to me that @nobody wasn’t overlooking the underlying reality of Techcrunch and it’s position, but, was complimenting a Techcrunch writer for rising above the ordinary and adding a human-touch evaluation to this space.
We won’t see it often.
But, it is interesting to see some dialogue, more than 140 characters long, trying to encourage more thought about both the good, and the harm, that can come from this sandbox we play in.
@Prokofy
Huh?
-5
A thoughtful and well written post with some issues to think about. But I can’t help feeling that it is a post dealing in extremes. Surely you don’t think it was likely or even possible for Twitter to bring down the Iran regime all by itself. And with regards to Ms. Moore’s “coverage” of the Ft. Hood incident I, like another commenter here, think it is much more likely that Ms. Moore was tweeting to her followers rather than a mass audience. True, her “look at me” failing could have come after the fact under intense worldwide interest in the incident. But again, I think it is much more likely that this is just like the “word of mouth” of old and one “did you hear about” tweet intended for a small group of followers got passed about until it eventually became a mass audience.
There surely can’t be a human being left in the civilised world who doesn’t know that cellphones should be switched off in hospitals
Even if that’s wrong? Shouldn’t you check your facts before ragging on others? See for example: http://www.phys...ws80413174.html
Spot on, I work in hospitals and everyone uses mobiles there now (with a few exceptions), I don’t know a single doctor who doesn’t carry a phone with them (mostly iphones).
The interference is so low it makes no difference (with the odd exception).
Paul, you have some valid points but your larger intention in this post is on very weak grounds.
Let’s take your examples.
1. Kids on the playground, watching other kids fight.
With fake/real cameras or without fake/real cameras, it doesn’t matter. I can think back on plenty of occasions when kids got into fights and everyone grouped around and didn’t seek help. They watched, mesmerized and sometimes immobilized by fear. Groups bring safety. I got my ass kicked once by a few people and the a group of watchers across the street didn’t do a damn thing.
The psychology of crowd/group behavior is well studied, be with people’s actions or inaction.
2. Neda
You can’t honestly tell me that social media and the ability to capture video on the ground in Iran wasn’t a great thing. It’s damn near the only thing the people of Iran had to get their word out to the rest of the world.
It did the very opposite of what you claim.
It, in fact, HUMANIZED the people in Iran. For awhile, many of us were brothers and sisters of Iranians. We always will be. What little we could do, we still did. We were connected. Being connected because of the free flow of information will be a veritable ’savior’ to the evolution of humanity. It will prevent us from being cavalier about other human beings in foreign nations. It will prevent future wars. It will. There is a lot of wrong in the ego/me generation, I don’t deny that. But of this technology will come a society that’s connected to the world. Of it will come a society that thinks globally, as citizens of the human race.
I agree that there are many cases where the eagerness to record events on video, photos, or text is detrimental. One should always respect other people’s privacy, for starters, case by case — which is unfortunately rarer today with kids taking pictures in public and making fun of people online just for what they look like, etc, etc. Of course, victimization, cameras or not, is nothing new. Education is needed there. What we truly need in schooling is a year-round class, every year, devoted to empathy and ethics. It would be open ended and impose critical thinking.
That’s the key: getting the empathy activated in people’s brains. Help students think about the hurt actions can cause. Pose dilemmas. Get people to *feel.* And have some curriculum focused on “street smart” education. People need to learn how to handle and diffuse situations and why it’s important to respect others and their differences.
After that, it’s a judgment call.
Enter social media and it’s up to the operator of his or her camera phone. Sometimes it’s damn important to be the one who captures footage while others help. Documenting events can be just as noble and heroic. Other times one must realize that if he or she doesn’t help, no one else will — putting the phone down and getting involved. Sometimes one must know to NOT get involved: being a “hero” could get one killed and/or others killed. It’s judgment. And people make mistakes.
You shouldn’t take certain isolated events and use them as a case that “social media” is causing insensitivity. Is it? Humans have been naturally insensitive since the dawn of humanity. Thanks to that clip rolling of Neda, millions of people are more sensitized to the thought and price of actual war with Iran. That means recognizing the people of Iran as people, a most strange and awe-inspiring thing to have to say. That means the thoughts of the mass casualties of these innocent people being slaughtered that war would bring: a war not mor than a couple years ago Bush & Cheney were trying very hard to start. That’s the same Bush admin who would not let pictures of soldiers being shot or scenes of coffins be released to the media. The violence of sociopathic culture is made possible by such disconnect.
So it goes. Neda did not die alone. Millions of people were by her side.
No. For Neda and her experience, she was alone, with a camera in her face.
She wasn’t theorizing or sipping a latte while reading Techcrunch. She was in pain and dying.
She was alone.
You were not by her side. No one was.
That is the point (one of them) of the Post. We should not confuse “social media” for reality. Being enamored with it doesn’t make it objectively wonderous.
@samantha
Excellent response.
I have a Swiss friend who does work for the United Nations. She was in a particularly nasty part of the Congo where she was doing verification work for a cease fire agreement. She went and observed the government troops, no problems. As she traveled up the road towards the rebel lines she came across their roadblock. Made of their victims’ bodies, and topped with the heads.
I asked about why she didn’t take pictures and give them to the media. She told me that in crises of that nature, I should always remember that the only thing I have that separates me from those I would struggle against is my humanity. To sacrifice my humanity for the purposes of ‘getting the word out’ is no different than the rebels sacrificing their humanity for the purposes of what they perceive to be freedom.
You and/or your friend thinks getting the word out is sacrificing humanity? Are you for real? Such an underlying thought is utterly devoid of humanity and entirely disrespectful to every victim.
The best friend of genocide and crime is secrecy.
In Sudan, refugees were crying for help from the outside world, wanting to know if people knew — and if they knew, why no one was helping. Do you know what it’s like to have sole surviving members of families who were slaughtered pleading in your face for attention, as much of the western world remained clueless to the massacres taking place? Maybe the area she was in it would’ve been futile or it wasn’t the right time and place. But, on the whole, keeping atrocities secret tends to be *inhumane.*
What’s scary, is that you, and the rebels do not think the actions you are taking sacrifice your humanity. You are both convinced of the worthiness of your cause. I have seen first hand where two parties entrenched in their beliefs leads in certain places in Africa.
Have you been to the Sudan? I have.
Have you been to the Congo? I have.
And people let me tell you, what’s going on in the Congo is MUCH worse than what’s going on in the Sudan. Think 75,000 people being ‘displaced’ or ‘disappeared’ in a week. Your philosophy seems to be, make sure others see it so that they will take action against the people on the other side. Up to and including, military action. Perhaps some war crimes trials to boot. Of course the only acceptable outcome of these trials would be a guilty verdict. Followed by a cathartic execution. ie – MORE KILLING.
The idea, however, is to stop the fighting, and the killing not to bring more of it. These people have suffered enough. What you want to do, you wish to do for you, not for them. And if it will make you feel better, I would encourage you to do it. But do not pretend you wish to help war weary victims. They just want us all to go away.
PS – The last thing UN verification work is about is keeping ’secrets’.
@cleo
I’ve been to the Sudan. We’ll have to agree to disagree. The last thing the world needs is to rely on UN verification to get the word out. The only way to get the world concerned is when people see for themselves the cold, blood reality. You’re completely wrong about the victims’ wishes. Damn near all of the victims and the victims’ families want action and want people to get involved, much more so (obviously). So either you’re making stuff up or your side of the story is heavily slanted by your experiences… maybe UN workers are being hated upon. That wouldn’t surprise me, considering the messes some of them have caused.
It’s a shame that you’re painting a broad brush as if to say that documenting genocide is disrespectful; it’s the exact opposite.
Again, we’ll agree to disagree. At least we agree on wanting peace.
It’s a shame you don’t appreciate the critical value of documenting atrocities and the importance it has in humanizing reality.
Yes, Neda was in pain and dying. Especially thanks to the camera, she and many others did not die in vain. Do you also have a problem with professional journalists capturing video of atrocities? The person taking video was not confusing “social media” with reality, as you say; it was quite the opposite. I shudder to think what your ‘hear no evil, see no evil’ vision of the world would entail if you think such video should have not been taken. Reality? Perhaps you’d prefer Iran’s state-run, censored media where activists are made to look like the abusers… or maybe video of happy trees and rainbows to make you forget about reality.
By Neda’s side — in a most figurative and emotional sense — many of us were and forever will be.
:/ Social media is taking the wrong turn. I always thought that the Iran “support” was pointless. If they didn’t care for their own people, they would most likely not care about foreigners…
About this, I can relate. It’s quite sad that people prefer to get their 15 minutes of social media fame, as a “citizen journalist”, then actually realise that they have the power to change the situation… Surely, it’s not all people, but it’s getting crazy.
Also, situations as sad as those 2 girls in the UK (or was it Australia?) updating their Facebook status and chatting instead of calling for help… Or like my boyfriend prefering to tweet about his truck accident before calling his mom or myself…
It’s getting ridiculous.
Video: Texas Governor Rick Perry says there were three shooters, the map shows two separate locations!
http://www.yout...h?v=-IL61yoWnk4
Rick Perry’s statement that there were in fact three shooters came from official sources, the map accompanying the video shows two separate locations!
Now the official story is that there was only one shooter ..the whole affair reeks of false flags and black ops!
Kinda reminds one of the April 1996 Port Arthur Massacre in Tasmania Australia, where out of thirty five dead, twenty were killed inside a restaurant allegedly by one shooter, yet the on the only video sound track released, which only goes for about one second, it appears there was more than one weapon firing!
http://www.dock...isplay.php?f=18
That incident was used to justify the banning of most firearms Australia wide, and despite the doubts raised the Australian Government decreed, that all the evidence and witness statements would remain closed to public scrutiny for thirty years!
I think that Hector makes an excellent point. While many people in the so-called “developed world” take this technology and immediate response in all aspects for granted, many areas outside the US have to rely on immediate coverage like Twitter for information. It is the beauty and horror of technology.
Yet what I worry about is a commodificaiton of this information, like this article does point out. Its a sensitive issue, because it is not black and white. You have censorship, you have horror, you have privacy, you have right to know. What do we show? What do we shy away from?
My worry is that things like this turned into products or things to consume in an exploitation sense. Someone might not make money off of it, but they may parlay it into sickening fame.
As for political potential for technology, it’ll never be effective in of itself. Read “Cyber-Marx” for a great explanation of why. It helps analyze the reasons why technology on its own cannot solve our problems, much like how this article articulates.
FTA: “people at the scenes of major accidents grabbing their cellphones to capture the dramatic events and share them with their friends”
How is it worse than people at the same scenes grabbing much more expensive gear to capture the dramatic events and share them with millions of people they don’t care about – for profit?
Add censorship, a pinch of political bias, generously sprinkle with meaningless words, drain all actual information – and this is the mainstream news.
OK, Moore lied. Don’t CNN et al? For some consumers, it is entertainment, no matter who provides it (Moore’s variety looks more exciting, more bareback). For others – sapienti sat.
It’s not like mainstream media or you social media wannabes ever spread erroneous information. WTH, she reported things from her perspective and relayed information that she was given. God bless her for doing what she could.
You flame her for not offering to help the wounded. This is a fully staffed hospital, I’m sure they had trained professionals doing everything that needed to be done for the wounded.
You say her tweets added no value. Being that they were the first and only bits of information to come out of the scene, I’d say they were fucking priceless.
You say the person filming Neda didn’t do anything to help her. Well you must have been so focused on the filmer that you missed the crowd of people around her trying to stop the bleeding and do CPR. At that point there was nothing anyone could do except try to let the world know of the sacrifice she gave for something she believed in.
You say the footage that came out of Iran didn’t do any good in the grand scheme of things. Well that bullshit statement doesn’t even deserve a response.
I guess you’re entitled to your elitist opinions. It’s what the brave souls at Ft Hood and in our military fought for and willingly risk their lives for on a daily basis. But your vilification of another American who was only doing what she felt she could at the time are nothing short of libelous.
Climb down off your high horse, Paul, before you hurt yourself.
Anyone with ounce of sense knows that information relayed in the midst of a crisis is prone to error.
If I had a nickel for every case of crisis reporting by a “professional” journalist that was wrong, I’d be rich. The professionals are so busy trying to get a scoop that they report baloney, too. Not to mention that the pros are often willingly spoon fed a sanitized story by the powers that be.
BTW, if it weren’t for citizen journalists, the world wouldn’t have known anything about the many recent protests inside Iran. They did an amazing job of getting news and photos out via the internet.
If you don’t like citizen journalists, then don’t read their writing. It’s that simple. They have a right to speak just as you do. It’s that’s pesky freedom of speech thing. Deal with it.
While I agree with your post, this criticism…
And what did he do when he saw a young girl bleeding to death? Did he run for help, or try to assist in stemming the bleeding? No he didn’t.
Instead he pointed his camera at her and recorded her suffering
..is just ridiculous.
“old media” have and WILL DO THE EXACT SAME THING. Pictures of monks putting themselves aflame, the famous Vietnam execution photo, the vietnam “agent orange” photo, etc etc etc. There is an endless list of photos and video of atrocities throughout this world from the last several decades in “old media”.
Did any of these people stop and help instead of taking a picture?
No.
So you’re saying you should not help because you happen to have a cellphone camera and that makes you a citizen-journalist first and a human second ?
What’s all this talk about helping in regard to the Neda video? Like Rak said, that’s ridiculous. Did you guys not watch the full video (not the one linked to, the real one with sound)?
People were crowded around her trying to help. Entering the equation would actually be not helpful (read: hurting) in that case, unless the camera person can push everyone aside and perform ‘magic powers’ on her. The camera served to capture critical events that informed people in the outside world — outside the gates of Iran’s media lockdown — of reality. People should be praising the camera person, who, in fact, helped a lot.
RE: Vietnam. People aren’t superheroes and can’t swoop in and help every person. In a war, it’s general survive or be killed. Even if you’re innocent and minding your own business, you can be killed, chalked up as collateral damage — without two thoughts. Kill first, ask questions later. So no one can blame journalists scared shitless and doing a very, very important job of documenting reality. That said, many journalists did help when they could… like anyone would. It depends on the circumstances.
Good points. Just because some citizen journalist do bad things does not make citizen journalism bad.
The main impact of the ‘Iran election tweets’ was not the effect they had on Iran’s politics, but on what effect they have in the west’s perception of Iranians. It may be fair to say the tweets had little impact in Iran but that does not mean they didn’t have an important impact.
Interesting discussion.
Wow.
Clearly many of you don’t speak Farsi.
Yes my “favourite” pictures from this genre are when one journalist gets a photo of another journalist being kidnapped, shot, dying in flames, etc.