Today on Blogcritics
Home » The Mind of the Reader Is the New Journalist

The Mind of the Reader Is the New Journalist

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Traditional Journalism

Before social media obliterated traditional journalism, we would probably just now be receiving the images: plumes of smoke, fear, and chaos. Details of the event would slowly and intermitently trickle down to the reader or audience. Journalists traditionally have been the collectors, shapers, and distributors of information. The publishers would disseminate the story, polished and refined, to the public.Traditional versus New Journalism

The Boston Marathon Bombing

“Holy shit! Explosion!” That was the first Tweet reported from the scene in Boston by Kristen Surman, seconds after the bang. Then, the red horror of the Boston Marathon bombing bled through Instagram snapshots, the atrocity shouted across Twitter, videos transmitted instantaneously. News spread through the social media channels raw, real, surreal, like lightning. First-hand reports, photos, and videos informed the audience, fitting a more familiar model for current news media. Information flowed through the now familiar channels, instantly, as if one were in Boston, without journalists as middlemen.

Although we are accustomed to the new media, consumers on the receiving end of information are met with a remarkable challenge, burgeoning in the past few months and years. Through social media, we first hear the stories as if we were present, which places us in the role of near eyewitnesses, close to the event and details. Data flies at us from all directions, mimicking the chaos one feels when actually present at a traumatic event. With the bits of information, we begin to weave a narrative in our own mind. We are the reporters piecing together the story, and the journalists are obsolete at ground zero. They stand on common ground with the public.

The New and Old Journalists Discover the Story Simultaneously

The instantaneity of reportage places a burden on the common person, who must piece together the story on the fly, time fragmented by the influx of texts. This sharply contrasts with the traditional journalism that Merriam-Webster defines as “the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media.” Implied in that definition is a slow, linear chronology of events as depicted in the blue section of the illustration above. However, the fragmentation of time, due to the fluid social media, places “we the people” as the eyewitnesses and the first journalists on the scene. We are the ones working the story out of chaos.

The Mind of the Audience Acts as Journalist

In other words, no time lapse exists for reporters to piece together an “authentic” version of a story to disperse. People receive the details directly as they are uncovered. Inevitably, consumers turn narrative pieces into story, before any formal journalism has time to impose its truth, speculation, and timelines.

Although many have written about the shifts in modern journalism, most fail to see the whole picture. Journalism is portrayed as anything from Tweets to Slate articles, but this captures only a minor piece of the complex undercurrent driving journalism today. For the foreseeable future, a new journalist has emerged, one with no credentials or even writing talent, and the story is synthesized in the mind of the individual (as depicted in the red section of the diagram).

This move is both democratic and egalitarian. Mainstream journalists, however, seem befuddled by the whole situation. This is understandable as they stand to lose the high ground in journalism and scuffle for means of making a profit.

Jeremy Stahl in Slate’s “Thou Shalt Not Stoop to Political Point-Scoring: A journalist’s guide to tweeting during a crisis” is quick to point out the errors, both major and minor, in Twitter reporting. But he lacks clarity about who the “journalist” is because the industry itself is uncertain. Undermining his argument for guidelines and rules, Stahl reveals that one is just as likely to find truth from a citizen reporter as from a traditional journalist.

Stahl claims that we should trust the Tweets coming from official sources (not citizens), but he later reveals “The AP filed a false report early in the afternoon, which was picked up by Slate and others, indicating that authorities had shut down cell phone service in Boston in order to prevent remote bomb detonations.” In the face of these journalistic foibles, Stahl attempts to reinforce traditional media. Slate seems as prone to error as the average eyewitness.

Stahl further reveals (a minor transgression) that “I actually retweeted [an error by] BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski, one of the smartest and most conscientious journalists on Twitter, and repeated this tidbit on the official Slate account.” So whom should we trust?

Clearly, the role of the journalist in the current global community is nebulous, but what stands out from the errors and missteps is that citizens have a role to fill in journalism that has never existed before. Through Tweets, Vines, and Instagrams, regardless of their sources, people must piece together the news as it happens, making sense of fragmented details, some coming from untrustworthy sources. The role of the traditional journalist appears to come somewhat later after the dust has settled. The real journalism takes place in the minds of the audience that scoops the story from the raw data.

You are the new journalist, the first to report and make sense of the story, while revolutionizing an age-old tradition in the process. By the time professional journalists are able to knit the story together, you already have the major pieces in place.

Powered by

About darinlhammond

Darin L. Hammond works for BlogCatalog, owns and writes at https://www.ZipMinis.com, and freelances as a writer and designer. Darin Publishes across the web on sites like Technorati, BC Blog, Blog Critics, Broowaha, Demand Media Studios, and Social Media Today.
  • Baronius

    Interesting piece, but it ignores an important question: why must the citizen take up this new role? I mean, it’s all well and good to note the delays and errors in traditional reporting, but there’s no reason that I need an immediate take on an event like this if I’m nowhere near the scene. It’s said that journalism’s strongest power is in deciding what not to cover. If I am my own journalist, as this article proposes, it becomes my duty to brutally edit the information I’m receiving in order to create a consumable output.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Well said, Baronius. Broadcasting a news story used to carry with it an implied responsibility to some sort of objective truth. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and the like demand no such filter, yet news shared via social media is often regarded as authoritative simply because it’s on the Internet.

    But in reality, left to their own devices, people exaggerate and distort their own experiences, either because what they thought they saw was not actually what they saw, or to get attention, or to give themselves a sense of importance, or out of sheer malice. Then of course, as the news gets passed from person to person and from site to site, the “telephone” phenomenon comes into play as well.

    So it’s best to take anything one sees on social media, particularly “breaking news”, with a large pinch of sodium chloride, since in essence it’s no different than the rumours that have always circulated at moments of crisis.

  • http://www.zipminis.com Darin L. Hammond

    Very good points Baronius and Dr Dreadful. You address a fundamental problem with the new reader as journalist system.

    However, you must also take into consideration that rumors are always rampant around major events, even prior to social media. Perhaps, the rumors are a bit better informed, and certainly much more quickly dispersed.

    Also, you seem to make assumptions about journalists that aren’t always accurate. For example, in piecing together the aftermath of this event, my creation of the story in my mind was at least as accurate as Stahl’s, who admits to errors of his own. The nature of storytelling, journalism, is to a certain extent always fraught with error, interpretation, and manipulation. It might be possible that some people are better off with the raw data to compile their own story.

    Still, I see your points, and I in no way am promoting this new brand of journalism, but pointing out the changes and the problems.

    Thank you for an engaging discussion. I welcome further comments, rebuttal, and feedback.

  • roger nowosielski

    Haven’t we reached a stage at which the very concept of “journalism” ought to be re-examined – a stage characterized by suspicion, distrust, disinformation, manufactured consent? And isn’t the increasing popularity of and reliance on social media at least partly a byproduct of our dissatisfaction with and distrust of anything that’s being billed as “the official version”?

  • Baronius

    I just read Stahl’s article.

    I have to say, a month ago on this site I made fun of Nicholas Kristof for a brainless tweet about the new pope. Now, I read that he took the Boston bombing as an opportunity to criticize Senate Republicans. I gather that this latest tweet inspired the title of Stahl’s article. At what point does someone get bumped from “credible” to “Kardashian”? ‘Cause this guy’s overdue.

  • http://www.zipminis.com Darin L. Hammond

    Roger,

    I agree that skeptical thinkers feel “dissatisfaction with and distrust of anything that’s being billed as “the official version.”” Also that journalism must be reexamined, critiqued and overhauled. Are you saying that things like instant photos, videos, eyewitness accounts and so forth are empowering because there is no “official version” yet. I am interested in your distrust of what ends up being “THE story,” and I wonder if you like having the near instant fragments rather than something “official.” What do you think?

  • roger nowosielski

    I’m coming from a postmodernist POV which regards the production of what passes as “official knowledge/information” as a means of social control. Correspondingly, production of alternative narratives/information is one effective way towards emancipation. Consequently, democratization of the production of knowledge/information is a step in the right direction. The growing popularity of social media, the internet, etc., as alternative sources of information and knowledge is a symptom of the general distrust of “the official version” and defines the postmodernist ethos of our times.

    You could look at the entire Wikipedia project in the same light.

  • Dr Joseph S Maresca

    Social media is turning traditional journalism on its head.