On July 15, an intense rainstorm dropping nearly two inches
of rain battered Rexburg, Idaho.
And bar none, the best on-the-spot reporting done on the
flooding in town and on the campus of BYU-Idaho was done by individuals with
social media accounts and cell phone cameras.
Witness this video:
(This video is of particular interest to me, as it shows the
neighborhood where we used to own a home. I’m certain if it were still there –
the house was demolished for student housing – the basement would be
waterlogged.)
Here’s another video from the same individual who posted the
first, this time showing flooding in a BYU-Idaho building:
More raw video – with a request from ABC News to use the
YouTube footage.
Now is this the who-what-when-where-why reporting that
represents the best of journalism? No, it’s not. There are no damage estimates
backed up by any authority, there is no accounting for the weather that caused
the flooding.
But they’re on the spot. They’re eyes and ears and cameras
on the ground. And with Facebook and YouTube to distribute the content, they’ve
got their audience. No one needs traditional news organizations any more.
Oh, they do if they want the gritty details.
But guess what’s getting disseminated?
Here’s the Idaho Statesman’s coverage. Note nothing from any
news outlet – just the raw video provided by that well-recognized news
organization, the BYU-Idaho Department of Music.
Here’s coverage from the Deseret News. They went with the
bitty story from the local newspaper (more on that later) but relied very
heavily on social media coverage of the breaking story for the best on-the-spot
reporting.
Here’s TV coverage from Boise. This is all social media
coverage, not local news coverage.
Here’s the local newspaper’s web coverage.
It’s sad. Two static images (fairly small ones at that) and
nothing beyond a little who-what-where in the brief text treatment of what’s
probably the biggest news event so far in Rexburg in 2014.
I can understand the restraint, however. In breaking news
situations, situations fluctuate. Eyewitnesses give inaccurate information. One of our local TV stations had good
coverage, balancing news gathering with social media video. Some of their news,
however, was out of date as the events unfolded last night (power never was
shut off, contrary to what the report says).
Still, the local paper could have done better. A lot better.
I’m not taking a look at print presentations of the news.
I’m looking at the breaking news presentation. This kind of event is what
screams for instant coverage, without the high-handed hand-wringing of “we
can’t verify a rumor.” We’re not asking for rumors. We want to see these videos
and hear from the folks reacting to the news as it happens, not a day later. By
that time, we’ve seen all the videos. You can fill in the whys and there
wherefores and address the rumors and officialdom then, and that works just
fine. But it’s clear social media is winning the breaking news competition,
hands down.
Even the big guys are stumbling.
To take a quote from Alan D. Mutter’s “Reflections of A Newsosaur” blog, “Newspapers can’t merely
dabble at digital.”
Nutter’s post discusses an internal New York Times report
(leaked by BuzzFeed) detailing how the paper is failing at digital distribution
of its news products. Nutter says:
In one painful example, a Huffington Post editor told the Times team that their newspaper was “crushed” by the amount of traffic captured by his site when it repurposed NYT coverage of the death of Nelson Mandela. “I was queasy watching the numbers,” said the unidentified editor quoted in the report. “I’m not proud of this. But this is your competition. You should defend the digital pickpockets from stealing your stuff with better headlines, better social.”
In another example of digital tone-deafness cited in the report, the author of the sprawling Dasani series on a homeless family trapped in horrific public housing did not get around to tweeting about her own story until two days after the first installment ran. Curiously, noted the report, the newsroom controls the Twitter account but the “business side” runs the Facebook page.
On this Rexburg flood story, most news media was outfoxed by students or university employees with digital cameras and access to YouTube or Facebook. And here’s the thing: I’m sure none of them set out thinking “I’m going to beat the local news by covering this event.” They were merely recording what they saw and distributing it using tools any fool can use. News outlets, with access to those same tools, got beaten to the punch – because no one has yet figured out how to make money off such coverage. Which is, of course, the bottom line in the business, and why it’s getting screwed by ordinary folks with an Internet account and a camera.
In one painful example, a Huffington Post editor told the Times team that their newspaper was “crushed” by the amount of traffic captured by his site when it repurposed NYT coverage of the death of Nelson Mandela. “I was queasy watching the numbers,” said the unidentified editor quoted in the report. “I’m not proud of this. But this is your competition. You should defend the digital pickpockets from stealing your stuff with better headlines, better social.”
In another example of digital tone-deafness cited in the report, the author of the sprawling Dasani series on a homeless family trapped in horrific public housing did not get around to tweeting about her own story until two days after the first installment ran. Curiously, noted the report, the newsroom controls the Twitter account but the “business side” runs the Facebook page.
On this Rexburg flood story, most news media was outfoxed by students or university employees with digital cameras and access to YouTube or Facebook. And here’s the thing: I’m sure none of them set out thinking “I’m going to beat the local news by covering this event.” They were merely recording what they saw and distributing it using tools any fool can use. News outlets, with access to those same tools, got beaten to the punch – because no one has yet figured out how to make money off such coverage. Which is, of course, the bottom line in the business, and why it’s getting screwed by ordinary folks with an Internet account and a camera.
1 comment:
http://www.rexburgstandardjournal.com/news/rexburg-rapids-sudden-storm-dumps-massive-amount-of-rain-byu/article_77e9ad66-0dc4-11e4-aa74-0019bb2963f4.html#axzz37kPmWDqt The local paper updated their web content -- 36 hours after their first story went up. They have OK stuff on their Facebook, but nothing much beyond borrowed video.
Post a Comment