Yesterday, the market was briefly devastated, dropping $200 billion in worth before quickly climbing back to its previous level, according to USA Today.
The culprit? The social media equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.
The Associated Press' Twitter account was hacked, and an erroneous tweet proclaiming that President Barack Obama was injured by a pair of explosions at the White House was sent out. That in turn sent the market free falling, which was illustrated in a fantastic USA Today front page graphic (I'm having trouble finding a link to it. If anyone finds it, leave it in the comments section for me).
We learned two things from the brief moment of panic: 1) the market will be adversely affected if the president's ability to do his job is compromised in any way (I'm no economist, but I'd assume it's because there would be panic about what economic policy would come immediately from whoever takes over for him). 2) The panic Oliver Holmes Jr. wrote about in Schenck v. United States is still very real and has expanded to cyber platforms.
While some might jump to the conclusion that the public shouldn't just trust anything a news organization says, that's not the right conclusion to jump to. What this hack underscores is the need for additional reporting by organizations, not just retweets until an organization prepares its own story.
Sometimes half the battle in journalism is finding the right source to talk to. In instances when sources aren't responding or giving you the information you are looking for, it's very easy, and usually safe, to say "so-and-so reported." But the danger with social media is its that much easier for news organizations to say "so-and-so reported" before needing to go elsewhere to find the information.
The 24-hour news cycle is vicious and, as its name implies, doesn't stop. But organizations need to look at the potential effects of trusting someone else's facts. Being able to say "we were the first organization to break the Boston bombings" means nothing if another local paper, or worse, an outside paper covers the story better than you do. With trust in journalism at an all-time low it's good reporting that will get you followed and make you the first news organization people turn to when something is happening, not being the first one to report the facts.
Contrary to popular belief, being first has become even more irrelevant with the advent of social media. If you're first, it's only a few seconds before someone else is second. Why not take the time to report the story yourself, make sure the facts are correct and be the 15th to report it? If an organization is well-followed it still may be the first that people turn to or, at the very least, the organization people turn to for the full story.
In the AP's case, the tweet was a hack, so a possible fix for the organization that needs to be first is irrelevant. But for the next time when the big news isn't broadcast because of a hack, organizations should simply tweet something like this:
"Hearing unconfirmed reports of bombing at #WhiteHouse. Can anyone near Pennsylvania Ave. confirm?"
Is it really ignorant to think no one on Pennsylvania Avenue is using Twitter at any point during their five-minute look at the White House? Of course it isn't.
By labeling the info unconfirmed, panic isn't going to set in as quickly. And asking for any additional information or confirmation (if five to 10 people confirm within a minute, the info is credible) engages the audience -- something newspapers have struggled to do in the technology age -- and helps create a credible report. Problem solved, markets safe (maybe they drop by $10 million before the info is confirmed or denied. It's still better than $200 billion) and faith in good journalism is hopefully restored in at least one or two people. My dad always said even just $1 made on your event is still a profit, and faith in journalism works the same way.
The line that parents now feed their children about being careful what you post on Facebook because an employer might see it is proving true in other ways and on other mediums. News organizations need to be careful of what they post because people will run with it. And once that fire starts, the whole theater will be engulfed in with just a few tweets.
No comments:
Post a Comment