In the not-so-distant past, news generally tended to travel in a few well-worn paths. It was reported by a newspaper, it appeared on television at noon or 6 p.m. or it was mentioned on a drive-time radio show — and those involved usually had plenty of time to report it and produce it. The arrival of CNN and 24-hour news changed all of that, however, and Twitter and Facebook have changed it again: Now the news is just as likely to appear in a tweet or to be posted as a status update by someone who is directly involved in the event. In a nutshell, this means that the value of a simple “scoop” or breaking news report is declining rapidly — and that might just be a good thing.
Whenever there is a news event like Houston’s death, someone inevitably points out that Twitter also routinely reports things that aren’t true, including the deaths of innumerable celebrities who later turn out to be perfectly healthy. And they note that new-media sources — such as the student-run blog network that mistakenly reported Penn State football coach Joe Paterno’s death — can wind up publishing inaccuracies in a rush to be first. But this ignores the fact that mainstream media outlets also routinely report things that aren’t true and have to correct them later.
Much of that journalistic process of verifying and making sense of news reports used to happen behind the scenes, inside newsrooms and TV studios and newswire offices. Increasingly, however, it is happening out in the open, where anyone can see it — and where anyone can take part in it by committing what Andy Carvin of NPR has called “random acts of journalism.” German chancellor Otto von Bismarck allegedly warned that anyone who enjoys either the law or sausages should not watch either one being made, and the same is true of the news. But we have no choice but to watch now, because it is happening all around us.
I would say until about 11 September 2001 it was three hours. Now it’s 30 minutes. You might say if you are a certain age – with Twitter and Facebook and all that type of stuff – it’s three minutes.
Curley said the focus for the Associated Press is on speeding up its ability to post scoops and news reports, which presumably is one of the reasons why the service has a prohibition on reporting news on Twitter before it appears on the wire, something the BBC also lectured its journalists about last week. The AP head told the Guardian that if the service (which is owned by a group of member newspapers) can “win by two minutes, on just about every story we can charge a premium.” Curley also said the newswire is working on developing a mobile news app that will feed breaking news reports to users, Twitter-style.
But is this the right response to the shrinking news cycle, to simply speed up the attempt to beat Twitter or the social web to the news by one or two minutes? Perhaps for the AP it is, but that solution arguably contains the seeds of its own demise. As I have argued before, the half-life of a scoop or a breaking-news report grows shorter every day, in part because sources like Whitney Houston’s hairstylist or the former chief of staff to the Secretary of Defense (who was the first to report that Osama bin Laden had been killed) can “go direct” rather than waiting to have their news reported by a traditional outlet.
Instead, it might be worth more — particularly in the long term — to spend the time trying to confirm the reports that emerge through social media (was that tweet really from the niece of Whitney Houston’s hairstylist?) or to push the story beyond the simple report that something has happened and figure out what it means or why it matters. That kind of analysis and context has always been the most long-lasting aspect of journalism, but mainstream media outlets continually get distracted by the need for another scoop or another “exclusive,” something very few non-journalists care about.
This mentality isn’t confined to mainstream media, of course. The blogosphere is just as guilty of obsessing over scoops and exclusives or trying to pump out as much content as quickly as possible. But there have been some encouraging signs from sources like the Atlantic and Salon that quality content — longer pieces, more thoughtful analysis, etc. — can generate the kinds of results that matter for media entities. Better that than chasing a news cycle whose value continues to diminish with every passing day, and in the end news consumers are better served as well.
Excellent piece Mathew, thank you :-) As a journalist that turned to the ‘dark side’ many years ago I’ve become increasingly frustrated by the focus on ‘first’, rather thank ‘accurate’.
Interesting site that deals with the new media in really fresh ways.Thank God for a democratized mediascape.
twitter brings news … but the news doesn’t tell us what is happening ..
Social media, including Twitter, has democratized access to information — reporting and consuming. But the importance for critical thinking by readers is just as important as ever.
Interesting article. But you are confusing ‘scoop’ with simple news. Houston’s death will always be reported, it is just news that has happened. Even when it breaks, it is not a scoop. Watergate needed journalists to dig it out, which is why it was a scoop. And as such, scoops still have enormous value.
I agree there is a difference between the two, but I think the life-span of both has changed — any scoop will be reblogged and aggregated and tweeted as soon as it is published. It’s what comes after that that really matters.
Very interesting post; I posted this on our company twitter feed.
So the broadcast industrial complex has not adjusted from information begin a scarcity good to being in abundance? Colour me not surprised!
If i wanted to go all Manfred Macx (via Accelerando, ie throwing out a free business idea) someone should be looking a building (in addition to the thoughtful analysis you mention) a service around Verification and/or Confirmation : looking at breaking trends, find out where and who it’s originating from and look to build facts around the emerging story. Basically NPR’s Andy Carvin, plus some wikipedia, with a subscription plan?
Thanks, Ian — I think newspapers or newswires like Reuters are ideally placed to do that, but not many seem to be taking up the challenge. And you are right that this opportunity is available to anyone, not just traditional journalists.
News/Media has gotten lazy and in the majority of cases has been nothing more than information parrots. Distribution of just news is no longer enough. As you mentioned what we really need is verification, context, and in-depth analysis.
I’m going to scream if I see another news outlet ‘report’ by playing a 3 to 5 second sound bite from a politician. What I want is an in-depth reporting that says, xyz says this, meant this, voted like this, and 3 years ago said the exact opposite.
Now that information is ‘free’, it is time for these news outlets to learn about value add.
Great point, Don — thanks for the comment.
Great point; especially since the rest of the article proves that being the first to announce breaking news is not sustainable.
You’re welcome ^_^ No hesitation to reblog quality posts (most particularly those which content I agree with ^_^).