Update: this post is now on Undercurrent’s blog as well. Word.
A month or so ago, I gave a presentation to my Thinking About Seeing class (a Gallatin seminar about visual communication – art, media, etc.) about Marshall McLuhan’s theory as it applies to the Internet today. That is, “the medium is the message” in that the internet collapses time and space restrictions while facilitating real-time communication within online communities, ultimately altering our perception and awareness, and thus “retribalizing” the world into a new “global village” where people “react and interact simultaneously to every stimulus.” (Yes, I just tried to cram several of McLuhan’s central theses into one run-on sentence.) To give a web example, I introduced and explained Twitter as a medium for “citizen journalism” and a network through which to build community and conversation. Considering that the internet is an inherently interesting and relevant topic to college students, and the fact that I was channeling my tour guide skills, the presentation went very well.
One of my presentation slides
Certain people’s reactions to Twitter, however, really bothered me. One girl immediately raised her hand, accused me of “drinking the Kool-Aid,” and exasperatedly declared, “But it’s NOT REAL.” Another boy waited until the next class to inform me, “I was laughing all weekend thinking about you Twittering.” I initially thought he was curious and suggested he join Twitter, to which he replied with disgust. This pretentious close-mindedness still frustrates me, even a month later. After all, I’m quite the Junior McLuhan when trying to analyze the contemporary desire to cling to “the real world” of print and all things non-digital. In other words, people who hate on Twitter, or the digital world in general, do so because they’re romanticizing past media; by attaching “realness” to print media, they’re expressing nostalgia for the kind of physical tangibility (specifically touch and smell) that the internet cannot provide. Of course, the fact that the internet transcends the realm of the “real” derives from this very lack of physicality, for physicality in media is bounded to time and space.
Despite what these digital skeptics believe, Twitter has recently received MSM attention in light of social media’s response to last week’s terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The New York Times defined Twitter as “a short-message service that has evolved from an oddity to a full-fledged news platform in just two years,” whereas CNN began its article with the following statement, which has since been edited out: “It was the day social media appeared to come of age and signaled itself as a news gathering force to be reckoned with.” Both sources wrote about the utility of Twitter and the way it enabled those living or staying in Mumbai to tweet about the situation as it unfolded. One of my Twitter followers, @gsik (Gaurav Sikka), only recently moved from NYC to Mumbai; I found out about the attacks when his tweets appeared in my feed. Based on his updates, I quickly checked MSM sources online to confirm what was happening. Two or three days into the attacks, Gaurav blogged about his experience – including his mention on CNN and various interviews. In his words: “I’ve always been a huge Twitter fanboy but am still marveling at its worldwide adoption over the past several hours as an instant communication and event tracking tool! Tipping point for twitter? I think so.”
The #mumbai hashtag allowed for all relevant tweets about Mumbai to be aggregated into one tweetstream
This “tipping point” has been in the making since I first joined Twitter in May, as evidenced by the social media community’s response to other crises or breaking news – i.e. the earthquake in California, Tim Russert’s death, Election 2008, and #MotrinMoms. But after the events of this past week, Twitter has proven its value in the so-called real world. Because the internet, whether or not people choose to acknowledge it, is rapidly becoming an integral part of the real world. It is real because it can no longer be separated from real news or real people. The relationship between the real and digital worlds flows in both directions – it is one of constant dialogue between official sources and social-media-enthusiasts-cum-citizen-journalists.
The latest MSM opinion in this conversation? It comes from CNN’s conclusion that “although Twitter remains a useful tool for mobilizing efforts and gaining eyewitness accounts during a disaster, the sourcing of most of the news cannot be trusted,” ultimately amounting to “an endless circle of recycled information.” (Somehow, I find this statement self-serving – probably because only CNN provides trustworthy news?)
Mathew Ingram makes a strong argument against this stance that Twitter provides unsubstantiated journalism, instead emphasizing how Twitterers quickly corrected the false reports on the status of the attacks in Mumbai. And as VentureBeat adds, “Twitter is just another source” of journalism, albeit one that happens to come directly from those at the scene. Therefore Twitter isn’t just a “circle of recycled information” – it fosters conversation between people who share information and those who want to know if that information is true. Twitter and social media constitute a launching pad for further inquiry or research into any news topic.
TechCrunch blatantly puts it best: “You can jump up and down and shout all you want that Twitter isn’t a real news source. But all you are doing is viewing the world through a reality lens that’s way outdated.” The digital world is merging with the real world in a way that infinitely expands access to information and connectedness with others – what remains is the decision whether to embrace and benefit from new media, or to denounce it and get stuck in the past.
Image from www.darkroastedblend.com
