TV Reporters Manipulated by Social Media
Beyond all of the usual modern techno-marvels that we’ve become accustomed to when watching the nightly news, the more recent advent of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube have revolutionized the electronic media. Because rather than use these as tools to help provide better coverage, the media moguls at the major cable stations have chosen instead to use these instant audience inputs as a vehicle by which to superficially tailor their coverage, and the behavior of their reporters. So instead of richer content and context, we get what could almost pass for a soap opera.
Sure, we’re all saddened by the dramatic destruction that the recent earthquake in Haiti has caused. The human cost is graphically portrayed by the legions of TV camera crews that fan out daily across the remnants of Port au Prince. Under bright sunshine, the ruined white concrete infrastructure stands out in bold relief against a stunning bright blue sky. It seems that the ground not covered by sheet-wrapped corpses is occupied by the newly homeless, as they wait in seemingly endless queues for food and water. There’s no disputing that, from both a humanitarian and news perspective, we do indeed need to see these images. Actually, and largely as result of viewing such footage, the usually generous American public has responded to this disaster by donating beyond all expectations.
The media has always thrived, even before the Twitter age, on its’ claim to immediacy, to bringing us, the viewing public, the latest in what’s happening. And so they perennially try to scoop each other, competing for our nightly affections-and the profits that more sponsors bring them. We rightly or wrongly rely on reporters, who by the very nature of their profession, are supposed to give us a clear lens through which to see the world. Supposedly dispassionate, and free of all prejudice or bias, they are paid to observe and communicate. It’s a cold-blooded business, but they get paid damned well to do it.
Yet, the role that Twitter and other instant messaging vehicles played in the changing behavior of some cable reporters during the Haiti coverage is remarkable. I can understand how viewers can become upset by seeing such horror, especially in graphic detail. Many have, albeit unfairly, criticized on-site reporters for not becoming rescuers. As an example, and very much as a result of audience twittering, Anderson Cooper of CNN was no longer simply covering the Haiti story. He now became a part of it, as he was extensively taped carrying a small child through the rubble, to safety. And CNN played this rescue over and over in it’s promos.
Don’t get me wrong, hi-tech can, and is, often a great thing-especially in the TV news business. But, when instant comments from Twitter cause instant reactions from the media honchos, the result is at best cheap and at its worst just phony. Anderson Cooper as John Wayne? That’s even a stretch for TV.
What do you think?