Twitter live Boston Marathon

One again, the first announcement of a crisis, the twin blast in Boston Marathon, which left 3 dead people, including an 8 year old child, and more than a 140 injured, was acknowledged via Twitter. Social Media were quick and efficient to let us know in due time what was going on and what the authorities, first responders and the Government (including President Obama) were doing to cope with the situation.

The explosions occurred at 18.50 GMT near the finish line of Boston Marathon, the most important competition of this sort. Videos  and pictures followed them live in Twitter and Facebook  , as well as summaries using different tools like storify and YouTube channels, also quite helpful to draw a picture of the situation, including President Obama's speech.

Obama explained that he didn’t know who committed the attack or why, but assured the nation that they would find them. 

Regarding the authorities, Boston used used their Twitter account, @Boston_Police, to provide, for instance, a phone number for those eager to share information about the attack

The Boston Police also used its account to explain that all the agents had gone back to job, an important issue in any crisis, moreover if we remember that yesterday it was a holiday in Boston.

Clearly, if before social media appeared crises, disasters and even wars, were broadcast in television, today they go live on Twitter.

Social media are self-correcting

It is also true that Twitter spread rumors, as usually happens when a crisis occurs, but the network was also capable of countering criticism, so, once more, it’s been proven that social media do not need to be corrected form the outside, they are selfcorrecting. 

As an example we have this information uploaded to Twitter by The New York Post (@nypost) which affirms that 12 people were killed, when at that time there were only 2 people dead.

But it was quickly disproved by @Boston_Police.

It is also remarkable how the citizens not only of Boston but even of Canada offered help to those in need though the hashtag #bostonhelp, not to forget the quick opening of the  Google’sperson finder and those who unlock their Wifi networks to enable people in the streets to freely access the Internet.

Crisis, Journalism and Social Media

It’s no news that we are in crisis. Besides the economical one, we are witnessing a world where new things come up almost every minute. I’m talking here about Social Media, and what I would like to question is whether and how journalism's crisis is related to the  whole new scenario provided by Social Media and all the features attached to them, particularly when a crisis strikes, whenever it is a natural disaster or a topic related to a political issue.

When I studied Journalism at college, more than twenty years ago, I learn that I had to confirm the information with two sources. That was the way I started working at the radio in Spain and that was what any of us did. No one ever thought of broadcasting any little piece of information not corroborated by at least one trusted source. If a citizen called you, or the Radio Station, to give some information, they were a source of information you should check. Nothing more, nothing less.

Picture send by @Kailuland to @112madrid
showing a crack in Peñalara (Madrid)

Only yesterday a citizen called @kaikuland sent a message via Twitter,with some pictures, to Madrid Emergency Service, @112cmadrid, warning about deep cracks (up to eight meters) on the snow in Peñalara, a mountain near Madrid. In a wonderful example of citizen journalism, @kaikuland contributed to create civil protection culture providing graphical useful evidence through Social Media, as @LuisSerranoR explained in this video-post (in spanish) shared by the digital magazine iRescate. Well done.

Influencers and trusted information

On the other side, we also know of many examples where false information had been uploaded through social media. If we only have a look to Hurricane Sandy pictures, there is no need to insist on the topic.

But what happens when it is a traditional media with a reputation and millions of readers who shares non verified information? I'm talking now about spanish newspaper El País when the diary published a fake of Venezuela's Prime Minister, Hugo Chavez, on January 25^th 2013, with 5 columns in its paper edition. The picture had been  authentified by a news Agency, they say. It remained in the digital edition for half an hour while the paper edition was withdrawn.

Paper edition of EL PAÍS showing fake
picture of Hugo Chávez in hospital

As a consequences of this misfortune, El País has lost not only an important part of its reputation but also many readers. What for? To be the first? We all know that in this new scenario, speed is more related to being relevant and to avoid rumors when a crisis strikes than to being first when there is no need. Old days when journalist and the media were the first source has gone, forever.

We, the journalist, should remember that we are who know the rules and we shouldn't forget how they apply, since we are supposed to make journalism (according to law), despite the new social media or whatever new chances the future may bring. It is our responsibility to be truthful because it is not only our reputation what we should worry about, but in a disaster, it is matter of protecting citizens, their properties and the environment.

Thanks  to digital volunteers, integrated in VOST, traditional media as well as ordinary citizens who post  with responsibility, social media are self-correcting, and things always end up in the right place.

If the influencers are those with a reputation, you may lose yours, besides your influence, at once, whoever you are, a media, a journalist or a citizen, in one single click.

The question is: Is the Hugo Chavez incident, and many others we see almost daily, related with the fact that the traditional media are not anymore neither the only source of information nor the first? I think it is. Don't you?

Please feel free to share your thoughts.