I will try to make this blog entry 140 characters long, since that is the longest possible message on Twitter, which some are raving about as a source of news during the Mumbai attacks. I'm not exactly convinced. And I'm already over 140 characters.

As I am someone who has previously equated "citizen journalism" with "citizen dentistry" Twitter heads were obviously going to have a hard time convincing me. There have been a few interesting articles trying to make the case with the attacks in Mumbai, however, including one from Mathew Ingram, who boldly claims "Yes, Twitter is a source of journalism".

Reuters also has had a good piece on "citizen journalism" in the Mumbai case,  as does France 24, CNN and others.

I remain sceptical, however. Looking through the Twitter search stream for "Mumbai", I see so much useless information, I quickly get the feeling I am wasting my time. There are some personal notes -- very welcome no doubt if you have family or friends caught up in the madness and would like to know if they're OK, but it's not information that offers anything anyone can act upon. I see a lot of best wishes for the victims and their families -- again, very nice, but not news.

Some Twit has Tweeted that one of the commandos on TV is a hunk, and more people Twitter back that this is a stupid thing to say. There's a similar, though more important, Twitter debate on what should be said and what shouldn't: giving exact locations of people could put them in danger just as easily as it helps them get rescued. That's more interesting than hunky soldiers, but because everyone only gets 140 characters a turn, the discussion is more an exchange of commands: "don't say..." and "be careful..."

There are loads of entries that are no more than a quote from and link to traditional mainstream media reporting, so like so many blogs around the world, Twitter acts more like echo chamber that news source.

OK, I do see tiny bits and pieces that may be useful, like someone running a blood drive, but that sort of thing is very rare. You have to sort through hundreds of pointless entries to spot something potentially actionable like this.

A few days ago, Darren Rowse, who writes the blog TwiTip offering tips for Twitter users, asked, "Can Twitter Be a Real News Platform?" He tried to separate news, which is simply fact reporting, from journalism which is news with context. Not sure about that. As anyone who has ever tried to report "just the facts" knows, it too is a highly subjective game, starting with the choice or what to report.

Then there is the issue of credibility. No one knows who most of these Twitter users are and if we can trust what they say. And they are not reliable because they bear no responsibility: if they give false information, deliberately or unintentionally, what price will they pay? What is their incentive for getting it right? Obviously, the mainstream media report things incorrectly sometimes too, but at least you know who to complain to and whom to criticise. Those outlets have to take their credibility seriously, as it is really the foundation of their work -- and in the long run, their revenue. An agency reporter or network TV journalist who really screws up will likely lose his job. The Twitterer will keep sending in his junk.

In its Mumbai piece -- under the unfortunate title, "Tweeting the terror" -- CNN used the term "social media" rather than "citizen journalism", and I am a lot more comfortable with that. Let's not confuse any of this with journalism.

But if the Mumbai attacks led to some kind of "social media experiment" as someone claimed in the article, then I don't think it's over just yet.

What worries me most is that I also see in the Mumbai Twitter stream the occasional bit of hate speech and allegations of responsibility for the attacks being thrown around without any proof. Such talk is hugely incendiary in situations like this. Of course, rumours always fly around as attacks unfold and afterward, but Twitter seems to empower malicious voices -- those that could incite new violence -- giving them a wider and more immediate reach than they could have ever dreamed of. That scares me.

 

Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.