Journalethix

Anyone who has watched CNN’s coverage of the Iran crisis couldn’t help but notice the network’s heavy reliance on Twitter.  In response, John Stewart criticized CNN for relying on unsubstantiated reports-but then again, with journalists expelled from the region, what alternative was there?

Apparently news organizations are not on the same page when it comes to the ethics of using Twitter.  PBS.org examines the ethics of using Twitter and other social networking sites in reporting.

Copyright David R. Norton 2009

Her name has been on the tounges and message boards of billions around the world. In less than 24 hours, the woman known only as Neda has become the face of a revolution, her death the singular image plucked from millions who have made their support for the opposition in Iran known through the social media soup of blogs, tweets and Facebook posts. The death of Neda will become a “flashbulb” moment for this period in history through its broadcast through social media—a medium that ironically has been credited with destroying the phenomenon of the global shared experience. Neda’s name will be remembered long beyond social media’s fifteen minutes of fame. Indeed, the media has treated the death and life (in that order) of Neda with respect, admiration, and utmost sympathy, as they should. There is no other angle here. She is a victim, plain and simple, who was killed for attempting to voice an opinion. However, what is interesting and perhaps ethically ambiguous, is the decision of the media to show Neda’s face at the moment of death. And indeed, news giant CNN did wrestle with whether or not to show her face.  At 10:30 am ET on June 22, the network blurred Neda’s face.  At 11:40 am ET, they showed her face in full detail down to the haunting image of her lifeless eyes as they stared vacantly at her father as he pleaded for her to hang on.  (I will not show the video here because of ethical concerns).

The moment of death is an intensely private moment.  Often networks and newspapers will run photos and videos of the moments just before death: we see the victim’s face, the circumstances just before the event (an explosion, a gunshot), but the feed usually cuts there.  The media shows closed caskets, but rarely is the face of the dead broadcast.  Even iconic war photographs such as Eddie Adams’s photo of the excecution of a Vietcong or Robert Capa’s image of a slain Spanish Civil War soldier dying just before he hits the ground race to the line but don’t seem to cross it.  Death is personal; and if one is going to show such images, there better be a compelling reason to do so, especially if permission of the family or will of the deceased have not been consulted, as is the case with Neda, whose moment was captured by a stranger with a camera phone and disseminated by organizations she might never have heard of.

Objectivity in journalism is myth, but the practice of striving for fairness is a very real and serious pursuit.  As more and more details emerge about the likely fraud that took place in Iran during its most recent presidential election, a call to action (similar to the action taken by American newspapers when they endorse a candidate) is sometimes necessary.  Neda most certainly was a private citizen who endured and intensely private moment which by fate was made public.  Her story most certainly needs to be told, but given the seriousness of this most recent conflict, perhaps her face also needs to be seen.  Let’s hope her life, death, and image were not used in vain.

Copyright David R. Norton 2009

According to The New York Times, Twitter will soon have a reality TV show.  Apparently, the show will be a competition based show that will have contestants use the power of Twitter to trail celebrities.  Once again, the uses for the Twitter service seem endless.  The question is, will a show based on Twitter do to the reality show what the reality show did to sitcoms and dramas: namely make them obsolete? -David R. Norton

www.twitterholic.com

On Tuesday, May 19, The Washington Post printed an article that posed an interesting question: is Twitter art, and can it also be considered literature?  The article, “Short(est) Stories: The Art of Twitterature Means Making 140 Count”, acknowledged that despite the banality of content on the site from tweets as inconsequential as “eating dinner” or “my daughter took a nasty fall”, there are some Twitters out there who are not, like celebrity Twitterer Ashton Kutcher, famous and yet amass huge followings-sometimes as many as 400,000 people.  So what makes a successful Tweet that might get one followers?  The Post offers four guidelines.

1. Make it participatory.-Instead of saying “Looking forward to dinner” instead tweet “What’s an easy quick and healthy meal”.  People will be more likely to respond.  Posting links are also good for generating discussion.
2. Make it universal.-musing on subjects too vague or two narrow aren’t going to get you many followers.  Instead appeal to a wider audience.
3. Make it count.-Although it contradicts spontaneity, you might want to think before you tweet- consider revising tweets before you send them so that they are absolutely perfect.  An iPhone applicationBirdhouse  enables you to store tweets and tweak them before tweeting.
4. Make it … Art. This last one is as open ended as art itself.  Everything from novels to haiku have been composed on twitter.  An appeal to aesthetics might get you an art house following.