Twitter was on fire for a little while Friday in the wake of 'breaking news' that golfer Tiger Woods was seriously injured in an auto accident outside his Florida home early Friday morning.
Tech journalist MG Siegler, who writes for TechCrunch, was all over the tidbit within minutes, posting tweets wondering where CNN and other mainstream outlets were with their reports. A flurry of tweets and retweets leaked 'details' about the incident in bits and pieces: no alcohol involved, 2:35am accident, Cadillac Escalade airbags did not deploy, Woods in 'serious' condition at a local hospital, Florida Highway Patrol sat on the story for 12 hours, charges pending... all of which eventually seemed to lead back to a report filed earlier by the local Orlando Sentinel.
In short enough order, Siegler had posted a blog entry at TechCrunch crowing that the Woods story was prima facie evidence why the Internet (and Twitter) wins in the contest for eyeballs in the new millennium. "This type of story is exactly why the web is destroying newspapers, and should eventually even take down television and (sic) the main source of news for most people," Siegler wrote.
Well, I beg to differ.
This type of story is exactly why we must view the information we get on the web and via outlets such as Twitter with ever-more-vigilant skepticism.
Siegler bashed CNN for its 10 word mention of the story 30 minutes after it had appeared on Twitter - Golfer Tiger Woods was injured in a car accident near his home, Florida officials say. But that's really the germ of all that was known at that point in time. Some of the other Twitter-reported details - such as that Woods remained in serious condition at the hospital - turned out to be untrue and would certainly be subject to revision and clarification in time.
I don't deny or discount the value of Twitter specifically -- or the web more generally -- as a source of news or as a platform for distributing information. But I also don't think the Internet or Twitter are likely to supplant newspapers or television as people's main sources of news and information any time soon.
Well, let me rephrase that - they may supplant traditional journalism outlets as the main sources of news and information for technologically savvy and well-endowed people - but anyone relying on the Internet or Twitter too heavily will always be subject to the hypersensitive pace and volatility of its streams. Sources of news and information will always be as important in judging its value and validity on the Internet and Twitter as it has been in informing the value and validity of news and information from traditional journalism's many outlets.
There's a place for the Internet and for Twitter - they are integral tools necessary for helping people build a well-informed, intelligent understanding of things happening in the world today. But they are not any sort of Holy Grail and they should not supplant journalism's traditional dedication to seeking out reliable sources of information and to confirming news and information twice and three times before deciding to publish it as fact.
Otherwise, we run the risk of always believing there's a boy in a runaway balloon floating somewhere over the Colorado Rockies.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
lorianne
whirlwind
OS Editor
Christine Macdonald
Bartouche
scanner
Salon.com
Comments
Excellent post. I agree with you completely.
I read you loud and clear. I don't even turn on tv lately for this reason and a few more.
Good going Lonnie...there's a boy in a balloon somewhere...gawd!
I refuse to tweet, mostly because the provost from the college where I work thinks it's important to tweet about TV shows like "Glee."
We americans love to panic.
In other words agreed.
Does anybody make money or get famous for being the first to break news?
I just found it a bit odd and, frankly, irresponsible of a respected Tech journalist to hail this particular story and the way information about it found its way into general circulation a worthy demo for the case that, with Twitter, we no longer need newspapers and television news.
When it comes to news and information, generally, more is better. And, more often than not, better information is available long after the initial ping about something lights up the Twitterverse.
We love it when it works out that no one was seriously hurt or died. But in the balloon boy case, the story was far more compelling, and we hope that it might spur some neighbors or family members to look in on some other kids who are at risk from nutcase parents.
In Tiger's case, he is a legend, not Heidi and Spencer.
This is a great post, though, from the aspect of the twitterverse, which I consider to be an evil that is on the lines of Stephen King's "Thinny's" From his DarkTower series.
"...they are not any sort of Holy Grail and they should not supplant journalism's traditional dedication to seeking out reliable sources of information and to confirming news and information twice and three times before deciding to publish it as fact.