Monday, April 15, 2013
Boston Marathon Coverage
There's been two explosions at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The marathon released a statement on their Facebook page, stating just now that they were investigating with law enforcement. It's obviously interesting that they would release it there, as opposed to each news network. Something that also intrigued me was the disparity of reporting. I had always heard about media slant in network television, but this is the first time that I've watched an event unfold, fully cognizant of the impact of the images I was watrching. Fox News was the most overt. I was flipping between channels, sifting through the flow of information for a nugget of new truth, and I heard the anchor on Fox speculate that it was a terrorist attack. The next channel over added that today was a holiday, Patriot's Day in Boston, but they had not postulated that the incident was a terrorist attack. Counterterrorism officials are saying that there were multiple explosive devices, just as tourists are being corralled in LaFayette Square, the White House taking extra security measures. Having settled on MSNBC, I started checking my social media streams. All Facebook was giving me was re-postes of existing articles, while Twitter was giving me a few glimmers of truth: 2 I.E.D.s, 28 injured, 2 dead. At this point, I'm regretting follwing so many niche accounts on Twitter. I really felt pigeonholed by my own choices. User's bias, I guess. How have you all been using online journalism to follw this event?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thank you David for posting this. I was also a little disturbed by ABC News coverage of the devastating bombing in Boston earlier today. So many speculations were stated and were unfortunately aired on live television. ABC interviewed Brad Garrett, a former FBI agent, and his comments were based on "loose facts." He made assumptions that local extremist groups may had something to do with it because of the nature of the crime, however he had no substantial evidence to back up his claims. On the other hand, during the program they also interviewed Senior Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas and he made sure that he was careful with his choice of words. He told them that it was "too early" to tell who was involved in the bombing, He also stated that they will have to go back to the scene to look for any new evidence that may point them in a certain direction. I believe that Garrett's statements is how stereotypes are easily formed and also how innocent people become targeted. Assumptions can be dangerous.
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of this class I expressed excitement that I could finally get the news on my new smartphone. But with studying and work, the first time I heard about the incident in Boston I was staring into the tearful eyes of my friend from Boston as she grabbed a tub of ice-cream. She wouldn't tell me what was wrong just then.
ReplyDeleteI went to Facebook to see if there wasn't some funny picture of puppies I could post on her page to make her feel better, regardless of what was bothering her. That's when I saw the status from another friend I have that loves running marathons.
Her emotional status urged me to Google everything. Catching up to the reports that I missed because I'm not allowed media during class and work.
So how I have been using online journalism to follow this event?
While social media wasn't the first thing to make me aware--because lets face it's actually not that convenient if as a college student you have exams and your boss watches you like a hawk--it was the fastest way to learn everything I could about it after the fact.
Facebook naturally has the human element. It's the first place to tell you how people feel about the event. People will create pictures memorializing the event and share them immediately. It is the same public web space where people are looking for updates on their love ones when the phones are going hay-wire. It a place where people can share sympathy and information at the same time with a click of a button.
This is why I believe that the Patriot Day Marathon committee might have posted their release on Facebook. It would have wider reach then their website and I can see how they would want to be somewhat separate from the over-speculating news organizations.
There was something floating around FB last night, a picture of a little girl running with the caption "Retweet for Respect" or something and a line about how the 8-year old that was killed in the bomb was a girl running to raise money for Sandy Hook families. Everyone was posting it and it was tragic but seemed off so I googled it and in 2 seconds found out that an 8 year old boy was killed in the blast, not girl, the boy who was killed was a son of a runner, not a runner and all the people running for SH families were fine. Apparently people were capitalizing on 2 tragedies to promote some sort of fake charity. It was disgusting and I commented on all my friend's innocent posts telling them it was fake. With all the inundation of news we have during horrible incidents, it's so important to find facts to back up everything you hear.
ReplyDelete