Calling a news failure
The internet is exploding with talk of the election protests in Iran. The information is almost inescapable on Twitter, yet many noticed the absence of updates on the story on CNN on Saturday and Sunday as it was breaking.
Really, CNN? Where were you? The problem with this is that is that if people revolt against CNN’s coverage (and some of the backlash was huge), then they’ll stop trusting their coverage and begin moving to non-traditional media outlets, like Twitter, Youtube or Flickr, to get updates on a fast-moving, riveting story like this. The problem with trusting sources like this is that some of their information can be unverified. One of the few major values of news networks is the fact they *should* have verified information; something like Twitter could be easily used to spread propaganda by both sides.
For all the moaning the mainstream media is doing about losing revenue, you’d think they would try to do a better job of covering serious issues, not dropping the ball perfectly into the hands of citizen journalists, practically sealing their fate as a dinosaur with little relevant to add to the story. Instead they should be combining both the new media tools, the technology and personnel at their disposal, and their access to tell the best story that clears up the facts and brings this situation into everyone’s homes.
That’s not to say that there is media fail across the board; the New York Times is doing a commendable job compiling the most interesting bits from the internet and converging it with their own reporter’s coverage. (Read some from their blog). A couple of notable twitter accounts include Change_in_Iran and PersianKiwi.