The online gossip site TMZ started posting the news that Michael Jackson had died 35 or so minutes before it was confirmed by the “traditional media”. TMZ, citing sources inside the hospital, had scooped the LA Times on a story in their backyard. To my friends, this was proof that the new social media - regardless of its lack of sourcing and protocol – does a better job at tracking breaking news.
I don’t buy it. Let me see if I can explain my position.
According to Reuters, the internet is the most popular information source. That isn’t shocking to me, as I’m one of those people. I’ll watch the news when I get a chance, and read a newspaper when I’m trying to relax, but for news – timely and delivered directly to me – I use the internet. However, it takes a site some time to earn my trust. I don’t consider Facebook or MySpace a good place to find news, and unless an article from Twitter is sourced, I don’t put much credibility in that either.
What do I find credible? Those media outlets that consistently give me good information, and on the off chance they don’t, are quick to correct it. They have earned my trust because they are credible. Who falls in this category for me? The Wall Street Journal, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, ESPN, StarTribune, Pioneer Press, CNET…all names you have probably heard. The problem? None of them came out with the Michael Jackson news as quickly as TMZ did.
What I know of TMZ is that they are good at the gossip stories, but they don’t always provide the sources and fact-checking that I consider germane to a “credible” news outlet. I didn’t believe that Michael Jackson was dead until I saw it confirmed by CNN via the LA Times. I wasn’t the only one. There were thousands of people on Twitter and Facebook with posts that looked like this:
“OMG According to TMZ Michael Jackson died today! Is it realy (sic) true?” – KathyGub
This brings me to the conclusion that having the right story quickly isn't the only thing it takes to be a respected news source. You need credibility.
Are you serving up credibility to your members and clients? If you were running a story germane to your business, would your membership / clients believe you as a credible news outlet?
The Eat Sleep Publish blog sums up the power of credibility in the news like this - “It’s not true until I say it’s true”.
That’s power that resonates with members and clients.
2 comments:
And here is an example of my completely different take on the whole social media thing.Last Thursday,hot(very hot) - I had volunteered with Rotary to help with an outdoor fundraiser. Lots of volunteers there with much to get done in a short period of time. Some of us were working - putting up signs, moving tables, getting organized, yup, working. Some of us were busy following the blogs, the twitters, the emails about MJ. All I could think was - Which one of 'us' would I want working with me, on a tradeshow, or a project? Might have been a bit of sunstroke. But really what does being in the present mean anymore? Who was more present? Is it more important to be doing the work? Or is it more important to be connected and informed?
Having recently taken a mass communications college course, to assume that any of the major networks are somehow more credible than TMZ is, in my opinion, folly. TMZ did get it right...Jackson was DOA and the hospital tried for over an hour to revive him. Does anyone recall Dan Rather's report that ended up costing him his job? It had everything to do with credibility-or lack thereof.
Basically all news programs are there to do one thing-sell commerical air time. They give a 30 second snippet of what they think you want to hear, so you'll tune in, up their ratings and enable them to sell airtime at a higher rate. It's all about money and pursuading public opinion, not credibility.
The sad reality is there are no "pure" journalists left (i.e. report the facts without personal prejudices) even when it comes to topic monikers- global warming is now "climate change", illegal aliens are now "undocumented workers" and terrorists are now "enemy combatants." All much "softer" terminology for the "hope" crowd and in the name of getting the public to assimilate, believe their credibility, therby up their ratings so they can charge more for commercials. Just look at their own tag lines: "News You Can Trust" "Where America Goes for News" "The First Name in News"... oh please. As Mozart said in Amadeus, "C'mon now, which one of you wouldn't rather listen to your hairdresser?" (i.e. gossip) I say Rock On Social Media!... I'm listening...
Post a Comment