Skip to main content

Sandy and those "reports" on social media

We all know that newspapers, and traditional media, is in trouble.....but does that mean, correspondingly, that we can trust what we read on so-called alternative "news" reports via social media?   A case in point, the "reporting" of "news" surrounding cyclone Sandy.    Asher Wolf in "Social Media Versus The Hurricane" on NewMatilda explores the issue.

"Why do people implicitly trust social media reports when often they haven't been verified? Hurricane Sandy is a great example of how social media can crowdsource both accurate reports and lies, writes Asher Wolf

Reporting and analysing critical incidents such as Hurricane Sandy using Twitter presents a particular challenge: filtering high volumes of information, and getting information out not only quickly but accurately.

As BuzzFeed’s Deputy Tech Editor John Herrman points out:

"There was no shark in Brigantine, and certainly no beached seal in Manhattan. The NYSE trading floor did not flood, and the 10 or more Con Edison workers trapped at a damaged plant turned out not to exist."

****





"The claims appearing on Twitter during Hurricane Sandy beggared belief and
demanded fact-checking — at least, for all of us who seek accuracy in news reporting.

Twitter in itself is not a truth machine — it is awash with crummy claims and false data. But the
platform is a goldmine of open source information, waiting to be vetted and verified.

We know traditional media outlets are increasingly relying on social media. Checking ascertainable details from online sources takes time and commitment. "Horse-race" journalism is simply dangerous during critical incidents: sharing bad information may have potentially perilous consequences, as social media users attempt to gather vital information to respond to emergencies."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more