A Twitter logo is seen on a cell phone screen in Tehran, Iran on June 23. Several news outlets, including CNN, have apparently been sourcing articles to tweets from Iran. But should Twitter count as a reliable source?
(UPI/Newscom)Photos (1 of 1)
A journalistic conundrum: When does Twitter count as a reliable source?
By Matthew Shaer | 06.30.09
We’ve devoted a lot of space here in recent weeks to Twitter, and for good reason: the June 12 elections in Iran were a major turning point for the social network. Whatever you think of Twitter – a lark, a waste of time, a brain-busting sociological malady – it’s incontrovertible that the service allowed Americans a peek into a world that would otherwise have been sealed up pretty tightly.
But should Twitter be used as a source for mainstream media outlets? That’s the question being raised today after a reporter for BNO News found evidence that CNN has recycled tweets from PersianKiwi, a popular Iranian Twitter user. As BNO’s Michael van Poppel discovered, in a June 24 article CNN appears to have repeated several words and phrases from PersianKiwi’s feed – and attributed those comments to various “sources.”
Here is the lede from the CNN article:
Security forces wielding clubs and firing weapons beat back hundreds of would-be demonstrators who had flocked to a square in the capital on Wednesday to continue protests against an election they have denounced as fraudulent, witnesses told CNN. “They were waiting for us,” one source said. “They all have guns and riot uniforms. It was like a mouse trap.”
And here is a tweet from PersianKiwi, dated from earlier the same day:
they were waiting for us - they all have guns and riot uniforms - it was like a mouse trap - ppl being shot like animals #Iranelection 9:53 AM Jun 24th from web
Breaking it down
There are a couple issues at play here. First and foremost, why didn’t CNN just attribute the quotes to PersianKiwi, or “an Iranian Twitter user”? The network in the past had relied repeatedly – and openly – on Twitter; in one on-air segment, a correspondent read aloud from Iranian Twitter feeds.
According to Gawker’s John Cook, a spokesman for CNN today issued the following statement:
Multiple sources contributed to our coverage in this particular report, many directly to CNN. The material was corroborated using various methods, including other first-hand accounts from the scene. Regrettably, two of these specific quotes should have been attributed as coming from an individual on Twitter, as we have done on numerous other occasions.
There’s also the question of whether traditional media outlets should rely on Twitter at all – even if the tweets have been “corroborated using various methods.” In a June 17 column for the Huffington Post, media analyst Farai Chideya argued that, yes, journalists should feel free to utilize Twitter, but only after doing their due diligence.
“I am not saying don’t follow Twitter (again, that would be useless),” Chideya wrote. “I do want to follow Twitter, on #IranElections and all else. What I don’t want to do is give up the idea of verifying information.”
In related news, Editor and Publisher, a trade magazine, recently launched a poll, asking users to name their favorite news site. Several have already picked Twitter.
—
Do you trust news from Twitter? Tell us here – or on Twitter.
<< Novelist Hoffman apologizes for blasting a book reviewer on Twitter | MainComments
2. Joe Boughner | 07.01.09
Asking if Twitter is a reliable source is like asking if a pen is a reliable source. Or a radio transmitter.
Twitter is a tool. Twitter is a tool. Twitter is a tool.
The question is whether or not the people using Twitter are reliable sources. And, just as is the case with every other type of source, it all depends on the person.
Twitter is only as reliable as the person doing the tweeting.
3. SpaceyG | 07.14.09
Note the last time @PersianKiwi Tweeted. I’m afraid she/he was disappeared in Iran. Whatever tool one uses and employs to disseminate information, there now becomes a humanitarian imperative implicit in the tool/discovery. And if a mass media outlet can not even attribute correctly, I doubt they will be doing a damn thing with that humanitarian imperative. They never have, they never will. It’s not their job. They’re merely a megaphone.
So then… who’s job DOES it become then to deal with the humanitarian imperative that seems to be inherent in the use of social media tools by the oppressed?
4. mherman31 | 07.14.09
Twitter information, across the board, couldn’t be trusted. But, just as in life outside of Twitter, sources need to earn trust over time as individuals.
One of the best ways to get a chance to begin to earn trust in the eyes of a journalist is to begin by asking what their current, evergreen, and special needs are. That’s one of the best signs for a journalist, that the contact doesn’t see the potential relationship as being all about them and their needs.
The medium here doesn’t matter if the information proves itself time after time over time.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. A journalistic conundrum: When does Twitter count as a reliable source? (The Christian Science Monitor) | Twitter Chat Room Chat With Twitter Members | 06.30.09
5. As cleric sparks new protests in Tehran, one blogger is mysteriously silent | csmonitor.com | 07.17.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Alisha | 07.01.09
I’m pretty sure I saw that on CNN and the way I recall it they weren’t trying to use a “name” or even a “screen name” for the simple fact of keeping their identity unknown. These people are in real danger, and what’s being said on twitter for the most part i’m sure is true. I don’t see people seeming that sincere and upset lying about people being murdered in cold blood on the streets of their “safe community”. The gov. has found ways to track these people that are trying to let us “americans” know what’s really going on through “free” speech on the web. I think CNN did the right thing by referring to the “publisher” of that tweet unknown. If they know the screen name they can (i’m sure) track the IP address like they are doing to so many other Iranians. I think it’s ridiculous what these people are going through to be able to have free speech.