Social Media vs. Traditional Media

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."

I laugh when I think about that line, but then I realize how true it can sometimes be.  Take the argument of "social media vs. traditional media."  Obviously, I have a vested interest in the success of traditional media.  But I also understand the pull and importance of social media and believe it can be used for the power of good.

So as I started writing this post, I had this weird feeling I had written about it before.  I went through the entire history of this blog and couldn't find it.  Then I remembered that there's a "Notes" function on Facebook.  Eureka!  Found it.  In light of what I've seen and heard following today's tornado warning in the Calgary area, I present to you the unedited post I wrote from February 9th, 2012:

*****

I've been biting my lip on this whole argument for a while now.  I've been trying to find a way to "craft" some sort of rant to get a few things off my chest while trying to keep the "emotional" element out of it.  I've had a day or two to cool off and now it's time to give you an inside look into the mind of a reporter in what seems to be an ever-changing industry.

Social media is an interesting beast.  Outside of radio, where are you going to get information up-to-the-minute?  Not the papers.  Not the TV (unless you're on an all-news channel).  Maybe on radio (I'm proud to be working for a radio station which actually still has newscasts so you do get it there).  But if something's happening right now, you'll probably find it on social media.  That can be a good thing and a bad thing.  And there's two schools of thought I want to hit on when it comes to that last sentence.

Let's start with you, the average everyday Facebook/Twitter user.  You LOVE to post things.  Especially when something is going on.  It's good to be that person trying to help out your community.  But how FACTUAL is that information?  Did you hear it from a reliable source or is it just something you heard through the grapevine or rumour mill?  Because we all know how many ears that gets passed through before it's hit yours.

I look at the grassfires near Lethbridge a few months back as a prime example of this.  The city wasn't evacuating anyone from the west side yet you'd never know that by reading some of the tweets sent out.  I have no idea how that information came to be, whether it was something made up through imagination or if it was a young firefighter or rookie officer saying something.  What I do know is it creates a ton of problems, including hysteria for those on social media sites.  How serious should you be taking these claims?  How long do you wait before you determine this is a legitimate concern?

The other issue it creates is it forces traditional media outlets into trying to confirm these claims.  And, as a reporter, I can say it sometimes feels like you're running around in circles.  I've always likened social media to having a call-in radio show, only there's millions of calls you have to sift through.  The only trouble is you have to get through a ton of crap to find the gold.  Having heard almost every rumour imaginable in the hours after the tragic murder-suicide outside Claresholm, we spent most of our initial news conference with the RCMP asking questions which the officer said had no bearing on the investigation (eg was a house fire connected).  I don't blame anyone for that but it makes you question just how much stuff out on the internet is truth and how much isn't.

As for us media types, we're almost caught in a Catch-22.  We're told (sometimes repeatedly) that we "need to be first".  Consultants come in and say social media is here and we need to embrace it.  Be the first to tweet whatever you have because you don't want to risk having "the other guys" beat you to it.  Well unfortunately this has left us holding onto our journalistic integrity by the hair of our chinny-chin-chins.  I can't tell you the number of times I've seen media people re-tweet wrong information (the Lethbridge-area fires were really bad for that).  You hear horror stories of reporters being sent out on wild goose chases about some "situation" someone else in the office saw on Facebook or Twitter, then it turns out to be nothing at all.  Yet no one bothers to fact-check and make a quick phone call.  They are using these social mediums as "sources" and it's getting some people in major hot water.  And yes, it's all to be "first".  Look at how many celebrities have "died" on social media, then it spreads to traditional media, only to have the celeb call someone to say "hey wait a second".  I'll tell you right now (and most of you who actually take the time to read this probably already know), I don't care if I'm first.  Yeah, it's cool to have a possible scoop.  But I'd rather be second by a minute and accurate ALL the time than be first by a minute and accurate MOST of the time.  I am super-competitive, but I like my integrity and the trust that people put in me to have the story right the first time.

I don't have any fancy-dancy anecdotes that will make people proclaim "Eureka!" while altering their attitudes towards social media.  Just hopes and dreams that one day traditional media can fully grasp the power that social media has and use it to their advantage while giving the average everyday person an absolute surefire place to go to get accurate, relevant information, whether its on-air or online.  Hopes and dreams that the average everyday person will stop taking rumours and innuendo as being "truth" and, in turn, will come back to the traditional media outlets to get the real truth.  Because, as it stands right now, between journalists, bloggers and the gossipers, the line still seems a little blurred to me.

*****

More than three years later, all I can say is "ditto."