Last night, as I sat on the couch and relaxed in front of the TV after a busy weekend, a bright red “Breaking News” scroll appeared at the bottom of the screen.
President Obama to interrupt regular programming at 9:30 for a breaking news announcement. The nature of the announcement is unclear.
The vagueness of the breaking news alert piqued my curiosity. I started imagining what it could be – Something related to this week’s hubbub about the President’s birth certificate? Relief coming for the skyrocketing gas prices?
Brian Williams broke in to regular programming (for those of you keeping score – yes, I was watching the Celebrity Apprentice). He indicated that the President was preparing his address but could confirm that the news was about Osama Bin Laden. Exciting, I thought. What could it be?
As my anticipation heightened, I checked Facebook to see if there was any new information. First status update on my screen read, “Whoa! Osama Bin Laden is dead!”
This might sound crazy, but I felt a little like a child who had stumbled upon her Christmas presents before Mom and Dad had a chance to wrap them. Part of me was really enjoying the anticipation, the “what could it be ” element of surprise, the fact that Brian Williams was going to reveal the big news in good time and patience.
Instead, social media spilled the beans.
I can’t knock social media. For one thing, it’s my job as the director of new media here at Albers Communications. Secondly, I checked my Facebook account, so I only have myself to blame. But did I really want to know? Or did I just want to read the speculation and chatter in the online world before TV brought me the confirmed story?
Another layer – one that’s probably worth its own blog entry – is that Jill Jackson, a producer for CBS News, allegedly broke the story on her Twitter feed, according to Gawker. Is that an irresponsible use of social media? Shouldn’t the president of the United States – or at least a government official of some sort – break the news? Not sure how I feel about that producer’s Tweet.
I would bet that most 18-40 year olds learned of tonight’s history-making news via social media. And it’s pretty cool that we can share news with each other instantly. But I guess part of my journalistic heart still has a soft spot for the way things used to be, when we all learned about significant world events together.
Very interesting perspective and I can’t say I disagree. This over 40-something learned the big news the same way — via FB — last night. I can’t say I disagree with you. Times are changing for sure.
When I read the news on Twitter, I thought, “Why did we ever cancel our cable?” At that time, we had only about 10 minutes until Obama spoke. We streamed his speech and the coverage of te event on our computer. If you think about it, we are all learning about it together – there were probably just as many (if not more) people on Facebook and twitter last night.
Not mentioned is how many inaccuracies were reported through social media, too — things like him being killed a week ago, how they needed the time to do a DNA verification, how he was blown up by a bomb, etc. Goes to show “real” media are still professionals who generally get it right the first time.
Good point Sean. I channel-hopped last night and for the most part the traditional media showed restraint in their speculation when it would have been easy to join the fray (most of the speculation I heard was about the preparation of the President’s speech and not about the details of the raid). Also, my most memorable moment — captured by TV crews — was the spontaneous singing of the national anthem in front of the White House. It’s still difficult to capture the emotion of a moment like that in social media.