Slashdot Mirror
Did Tech Websites Exploit the Boston Marathon Bombing?
Nerval's Lobster writes "These days, when something in the world goes very wrong, it seems as if everybody learns about it first on Twitter and Facebook. In the minutes after homemade bombs turned the finish line of the Boston Marathon into a crime scene, terms such as #BostonMarathon shot to the top of Twitter's Trends list; across the country, office workers first learned of the attack when someone posted a message on a Facebook page. Social networks have become this generation's radio, the default conduit for the freshest information. As first responders treated the wounded and the minutes ticked past, news organizations began vacuuming up Twitter and Facebook posts from around Boston and posting it on their Websites, along with 'regular' text updates. A Vine video-snippet of a bomb going off near the finish line, knocking a runner off his feet, ended up embedded into dozens of blog postings. When a disaster strikes, and many of those same news Websites post 'live updates' that incorporate tons of social-networking posts, they face accusations of exploiting the tragedy in the name of pageviews and revenue. That's not surprising—long before 'yellow journalism' became a term, people have charged news organizations with playing up humanity's worst for their own gain. In the immediate aftermath of the Boston bombings, online pundits lashed out against Mashable, The Verge, Wired, and other publications that had posted live updates, accusing them of stepping outside their usual coverage areas for cynical gain. In the following piece, a number of tech editors-in-chief, including The Verge's Joshua Topolsky and Mashable's Lance Ulanoff, talk about their approaches to covering the tragedy."
"Some Websites that posted “live updates” faced accusations of exploiting the tragedy in the name of pageviews and revenue." ??
Each time a disaster happens, we're FLOODED with the same info, repeated over and over... on TV and Internet...
So can I ask something : What's the difference between a website and a channel, such as Fox/CBC/CNN/etc !?
Why only the "Websites" and not every damn TV channel that broadcast the same ****ing news all day long?
ty.
... most news agencies are for-profit entertainment businesses, rather than public service organizations.
I'm a marathon runner, and the first I heard about this was from friends inquiring if I knew anybody there. I can't conceive of what earthly good this information would have done them (perhaps they wanted to offer me some sort of comfort if I had) but I do know that whatever it is, people are fascinated by the tragedies and want to know everything they can the soonest they can.
So I can hardly blame news companies for giving people the fastest information that they can. They're not so much "exploiting" the tragedy as giving people what it is they're craving (or at least, the closest substitute they can get to it, the unverified raw data stream). I don't think it's doing them any good (that's a different rant) but they're not forcing this on people. They're doing what people ask them to do.
across the country, office workers first learned of the attack when someone posted a message on a Facebook page.
I have no idea if this is true or not, but unfortunately I believe it.
People waste so much paid work time on Facebook. Why don't they put it to productive use, and post on Slashdot instead?
#DeleteChrome
legitimized with an editorial?
Traditional news sites repost content from social networks and blog sites, and then traditional media blames social networks and blog sites for exploiting tragedy and the errors they themselves repeated.
Who fucking cares what they think. You should be attacking them directly, not defending yourselves with equivocation about page views and advertising. Newspapers and TV news have ads too, and their websites are even more obnoxious with them.
Just like Slashdot is by posting a non story for clicks.
No wonder there was so much misinformation. First there was 1 dud bomb that didn't go off, then there were 5. Then there were none.
This is all social media's doing.
Was all the information we received during the 911 attacks accurate right from the start? At least I heard wildly different accounts as the situation developed, so I'd say no.
"Social media" didn't really exist back then, and certainly isn't the cause. When something sudden happens it takes time for the information to disseminate, and for a while people have to rely on rumours. It's the same as it ever was.
It's possible that one thing has changed: people have developed unrealistic expectations for how quickly you can get accurate information from far away.
That depends. Many blogs have a sizable crowd of followers who regularly debate stuff amongst themselves, and in some cases there is a group of regular, frequent commenters, transforming a blog from a mere set of articles with comments into an online community. Such a community might well feel the need for a topic to discuss momentous events like these, even if it is off topic. Just like everyone was discussing it today at the water cooler and at their desks.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I got back from work and learned of the explosions from Slashdot first, opened a tab to googlenews and caught on that it was still too recent to get a fully accurate understanding of this story. I read the comments here and did get information that proved to be accurate (applause for the good users here). There's nothing wrong with Slashdot posting the story, it is news that matters.