Citizen Journalism and the Mumbai Attacks: "We're All Journalists Now"

Many around the world are referring to the tragedy in Mumbai as "India's 9/11". The blood, horror, and carnage spread by the terrorists does frighten us now, just as it did seven years ago.

In a sense, modern technology made this act of terrorism even more frightening. Because of Twitter, Flickr and other services, people around the world were thrust into first-hand accounts of what was going on, while the big media outlets tried feverishly to keep pace.

Imagine what it would have been like if Twitter and Facebook had been around on the REAL 9/11. People in the towers or on the planes would have been able to let us all know what was really going on.

The question is: Is this necessarily a good thing for journalism?

Robert Creamer, a political organizer and strategist, is a contributor for The Huffington Post. He blogged about two colleagues of his who texted them from Mumbai. As he pondered the significance of this event and its coverage, he identified two key points:

"First, experiencing terrorism -- attacks on innocent civilians -- from the stand point of the victims themselves really drives home in no uncertain terms that it is completely morally repugnant.

"Second, our experience Thursday demonstrated once again how dramatically technology has forced us all into the same neighborhood."

But is this a neighborhood in which we really want to be? Does it do us any good to see raw pictures of dead and bloodied bodies in the streets? Will reading about cold-blooded murder from those who see it firsthand draw people to the news, or push them away?

Even more pressing of a question: Will it inspire future attacks?

Mira Veda, an Indian recording artist, posted her comments on The Huffington Post as well, saying that more coverage of the Mumbai terror will lead to more attacks.

"The ruthless terrorist attacks aimed at high profile luxury establishments in Mumbai were specifically orchestrated towards Britons and Americans to get premium media coverage."

"The tactical and strategic gain for the perpetrators creates an ominous future of fear for us but seems to produce favorable results for them. Every news channel, print media and virtual medium is bombarded with the same message: Fear. Mission successful."

That fear seems to expand with the fact that the terrorists were using modern technology to their advantage. The Courier-Mail out of Queensland, Australia is reporting that the terrorists used BlackBerrys in order to track the news feeds and international reaction of the goings-on.

It is rumored that Indian authorities even asked those on Twitter to stop reporting on the anti-terror operations, so as not to aid the terrorists.

Amy Gahran, a writer on Poynter.org, is exploring the rumor on her blog. In the meantime, she wrote a column on Poynter regarding "Responsible Tweeting". She seeks to educate Twitter users in the finer points of journalism. Essentially she is saying that this request, true or not, is a milestone for citizen journalism.

Again, I wonder if this is necessarily a good thing. What I see on the nightly news or the cable networks is at least edited and somewhat censored (or at least warned about) so I can avoid the graphic nature if I choose to. Being thrust into the scene via Twitter and such puts me in an uncomfortable spot as a news viewer.

Perhaps the most poignant piece on this issue comes from Forbes magazine. They called the Mumbai attacks "Twitter's Moment", thrusting it into the mainstream of journalism. Referring to the rumored self-censorship, Forbes declares:

"If it's true, it's a breakthrough. It's the sort of challenge journalists covering combat have long grappled with: What information should you share? Who decides what you can write? To what end?"

These are questions we have grappled with in our class, and likely still will. To paraphrase Rowdy Roddy Piper, just as we think we have the answers, citizen journalism changes the questions.

The Forbes article (and thus, this blog post) comes to a conclusion we have also come to in our class, and that I have admitted personally from the beginning.

"We're all journalists now. Let's just hope none of us wind up being combat reporters, as so many in Mumbai did this week."

Reunited, And It Feels So Good

The Santa Rosa (CA) Press Democrat featured an article Thursday about a happy reunion of epic journalistic proportions.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein are epic journalistic figures for their reporting of the Watergate scandal that brought down President Nixon. A high-up source nicknamed "Deep Throat" supplied information to the reporters as they progressed in the investigation.

"Deep Throat" went public with his story in 2005. He is Mark Felt, now a sprightly 95 years old. Under Nixon, he had been the No. 2 man in the FBI, and looked to succeed J. Edgar Hoover.

Last week, Woodward and Bernstein went to Felt's home in Santa Rosa, California to thank him for his service. Interestingly enough, it was Bernstein's first time actually meeting Felt. Woodward had always met with the shadowy figure.

"It was a private visit-- a closing of the circle," Bernstein said. "We are both very glad we did it. It was evident he was glad."

This story reminded me of the glory days of investigative reporting. In many respects, it is a shell of its former self as more and more of it becomes trivial drivel.

Is it because of 24-hour news and the constant need to feed the beast, as we watched in class today? Is it fear? Are today's reporters too soft?

Blogger, Texas Ranger?

We know Chuck Norris for many things: action star, Total Gym and Mike Huckabee pitchman, inspiration for a lever on Conan's show, as well as countless jokes.

But is he a journalist?

On the right-wing website townhall.com, Norris is a regular contributor, having written about a column a week for the site throughout 2008. The article that caught my attention was this one about Proposition 8.

Here's some samples of what Norris has to say:

"The truth is that the great majority of Prop. 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion: Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop. 8 votes weren't intended to deprive any group of its rights; they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage. "

"On Nov. 4, the pro-gay community obviously was flabbergasted that a state that generally leans left actually voted right when it came to holy matrimony."

"Like it or not, it's the law now. The people have spoken."

Townhall.com does not have a corner on the market for celebrity journalists. Semi-regular columnists for The Huffington Post include Harry Shearer and Jamie Lee Curtis.

So, are they journalists because they do somewhat regular writing for news-like web sites?

Is our decision to call them journalists or not skewed because we have seen them in movies or TV shows?

ESPN: Kickin' It Old School

So, remember my blog post about ESPN not reporting the alleged Brett Favre info-sharing story? If not, continue to scroll down. The last thing I wrote in that article was my anticipation of what ESPN's ombudsman, LeAnne Schreiber, would have to say about the whole thing.


Well, Schreiber has spoken.


In her latest column published this week, Schreiber praised ESPN for excersing "old-school journalistic ethics" with regards to the Favre story.

Still, though, the perception that the network was favoring or protecting Favre is hard to overcome. Schreiber asked ESPN's news director Vince Doria his reasoning for delaying the Favre coverage.

"When a story involves criminal allegations or issues that impugn character, and when there is no track record of similar behavior by the individual targeted by the story, we don't report it without further confirmation on our part," Doria said. "We felt this story called Favre's character into question, and we couldn't confirm it."

So, Schreiber's final verdict is summed up thus:

"ESPN had a genuine old school moment. If ESPN had them more often, it would have a better chance of winning the perception game."

So, do you agree? Does true journalism include holding off on reporting character-damaging allegations towards those with seemingly good character? What about the John Edwards story as a precedent?

Who or What Is Martin Thomas Eisenstadt?

By now, most of us have heard the story first reported by Fox News about how Sarah Palin allegedly did not know that Africa was a continent, in addition to her not knowing all the countries in North America. Who would have leaked such seemingly damaging information?

Martin Eisenstadt, that's who.

In his blog post today, Eisenstadt, who served as a foreign policy advisor/Jewish liaison to the McCain campaign and as head of the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy, proudly took responsibility for the leak. MSNBC and a blog called The New Republic reported the leak.

He said he did so did so because, "I don’t want [Fox News] to have to worry about protecting their sources (and going through the wringer a la Judith Miller or Matt Cooper) on something like this."

Well, that sounds all well and good, except for one thing:

It appears that Martin Eisenstadt does not exist.

Bloggers William K. Wolfrum from Shakesville and Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones did some digging and concluded back in JUNE AND JULY, respectively, that the whole Eisenstadt thing is a hoax.

Wolfrum unequivocally stated, "There is no M. Thomas Eisenstadt. There is no Eisenstadt Group. There is no Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy."

The confusion seems to come from the fact that a Michael Eisenstadt works for the Washington Institute, and is a noted foreign policy expert. He has said publicly he is not M. Thomas Eisenstadt.

MSNBC's David Shuster has admitted it may have been made up, and The New Republic has retracted its post.

This collaboration of information originally comes from The Huffington Post.

In our class, we talk about the importance of not only getting stuff first, but getting it right. How long would it have taken MSNBC and The New Republic to do a bit of research and realize the whole thing was a sham?

Is the nature of modern journalism at fault? Was the need to get the story right sacrificed to get it reported first? Are journalists more susceptible now to these sorts of things than they have been before?

Journalism In an Identity Crisis?

A forum was held at the Salt Lake Library last night by the National Press Club. The topic? "The Future of Journalism". The forum was a joint venture between the NPC and the communications departments of the University of Utah and Utah State University.

The conclusion? Something we already knew: the Internet is changing journalism, but not necessarily for the better. This will happen until a way is found to make information on the Internet viable, the panel said.

"You can have all the bells and whistles you want, but unless there is actual content there, people won't come back," said Ted Pease, former department chairman at USU.

Essentially, the panelists decided that the future of journalism lies in the fundamentals. Being seen as a credible professional is more important than ever.

However, the Internet also makes this difficult, according to Con Psarras, KSL's news director. He said that because of instant updates by so many citizen journalists, it is harder to verify information.

"Our problem is educating the consumers to the value and essence of the information," Psarras said. "It's almost like (news organizations) need a disclaimer that says these facts have been checked."

A very interesting read for our class. Maybe it would be worth discussing next week. Thanks to Clayton Norlen for writing this article for the Deseret Morning News.

The Supreme Court and the F-Word

Lost in the awe-inspiring mass of information thta was Election Day, was a Supreme Court case on the use of profanity in broadcasting. An in-depth report can be found thanks to the McClatchy Washington Bureau.

The case, known as FCC v. Fox Television Stations, is the highest-profile free speech case of the year. Fox claims that the FCC's policy change towards "the f-word" came without explanation and inhibits free speech.

The FCC meanwhile, defends its ability to levy fines upwards of $325,000 for even a fleeting f-bomb. The change came after Bono's acceptance speech during the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, where a celebratory f-word flew from his lips.

The conservative justices seem to be siding with the FCC, saying that the f-word is merely shock value. Others have trouble finding concrete reasons why the policy became more strict, and seem to be fine with the occasional swear word.

So, with regards to our class...

*Do hefty fines for unintentional profanity inhibit free speech?

*Should profanity on the airwaves be protected by free speech?