Amateur newsies top the pros

September 16, 2001 2:49 PM

Amateur newsies top the pros Blogs and other on-line sources are often doing a better job of getting news to us than professional organization, who are too often busy echoingUnite and Fight themes.
posted by Postroad (15 comments total)

If that writer honestly thinks the old man picture is better than the "cliche" firemen-with-flag picture, it's probably just as well s/he isn't a professional, at least a professional picture editor.
posted by nance at 3:37 PM on September 16, 2001

The fireman-with-a-flag, a CLICHE?! I have to agree with you there, nance. That photo is the photo of a lifetime.
posted by dagny at 3:41 PM on September 16, 2001

Ahem...actually, that article talked a bit more extensively about Metafilter.

An article in Yahoo Internet Life a couple of months ago descibed how the people were slowly reclaiming the .net. I think the events of the past few days have proved it.
posted by feelinglistless at 3:45 PM on September 16, 2001

I'd have to agree that the firemen-with flag picture will stand for years to come as a symbol of Americans overcoming this tragedy. The old guy just looks goofy. That being said, the author is otherwise dead on. The news coming from weblogs and other small news sites was much more varied, informative, and moving than any of the major news networks.

What's up with the networks, anyway? They can't get anything right. Even the executive order regarding flags at half staff was reported incorrectly. One network reported that it would go through 9/16, and another reported that it would go through 9/22. That's an executive order, for god's sake, it's in writing!
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:47 PM on September 16, 2001

personally, the picture of the singed document is one of the more deeply disturbing pictures i've seen.
posted by jcterminal at 3:50 PM on September 16, 2001

One thing Wired didn't point out is the unique nature of this tragedy -- it happened in the absolute heart not only of the professional news media, but of the freelance writing/designing/photography community, as well. Only an attack on San Francisco would touch so many people with weblogs, digital cameras and bandwidth.

And there's little to compare it to. Note that there's very little from the web amateurs about the Pennsylvania crash. The OKC bombing was a little ahead-of-the-curve, netwise. If this truly becomes a war of terror, let's see how the pros vs. amateurs stack up if the next strike is in Fort Wayne, Indiana. As someone who lives there and has a foot in both camps, I'll do my best.
posted by nance at 4:11 PM on September 16, 2001

That's the silliest thing I've heard all day. Almost entirely, Blogers and Co. simply repeat what they hear on television. In this case, they threw in a few photos they took with their digital cameras and passionately reported what would be described as a poignant, but irrelevant human-interest story, had it been aired on TV.
posted by Witold at 4:56 PM on September 16, 2001

Here's some reaction from the news community that meant something to me anyway.
posted by dabradfo at 5:09 PM on September 16, 2001

passionately reported what would be described as a poignant, but irrelevant human-interest story, had it been aired on TV

Sorry -- just having difficulty understanding that last comment. I'm perhaps being touchy, but if you were directly effected by all this, I'm sure you wouldn't think any of it was irrelevant.

After all, before this happened, the big news story in British newspapers was this. Now that's irrelevant.
posted by feelinglistless at 5:18 PM on September 16, 2001

That's the silliest thing I've heard all day. Almost entirely, Blogers and Co. simply repeat what they hear on television. In this case, they threw in a few photos they took with their digital cameras and passionately reported what would be described as a poignant, but irrelevant human-interest story, had it been aired on TV.

Thanks for that, Witold. That means that the small bit I've been able to contribute since Tuesday has been useless.

What about photos by a man as he escaped the burning building, down the stairwells, out to the street, and then more photos of survivors, the rubble, the smoke? What about any of the photos? What about those well-writen, careful stories of loved ones feared missing, loved ones known dead, even just lives disturbed? Is there a price of entry for that? Must it be only the province of newspapers? What's wrong with poignant?

As for news, hard news, the weblogs have had it days before the mainstream media got it. That stewardess they found with her hands tied behind her back, both arms separated from her torso? I heard that days ago, but it was just on television last night. The fact that the city's emergency bunker was in No. 7 World Trade Center? I reported that Tuesday, around noon, while it took days for the newspapers to remember it. Which streets are open, which are closed, which subways are running, where to go to get permission to go get your belongings from your apartment in the lockdown zone? Don't look to radio, television or newspapers: they'll only give you numbers for businesses, not individuals.

I grew tired of the television coverage days ago, but I have yet to weary of the stories from people who live in my town, share the streets with me, who, like me, treat this city as their community living room. Weblogs are about people, and they've done a fine job of it these past days. I suggest you read more, and better, and step away from your television.
posted by Mo Nickels at 5:35 PM on September 16, 2001

Witold - maybe you aren't reading the right weblogs. I can't agree that the first-person accounts are irrelevant - there were a lot of stories providing evidence that most Americans are not like the clueless twits attacking anyone wearing a turban or chador right now. The photography and video gave a human element that you just don't get from watching a plane crash into WTC2 for the 23rd time.

Even if you ignore those completely, the other thing the weblogs offered was a much wider and deeper selection of information - about the attack, about the groups involved, about the plight of the people some want to nuke along with bin Laden, about the comprehensive failure of the intelligence and anti-terrorist community, etc. Spending 15 minutes on MeFi or scripting.com gave you more information than watching CNN/NBC/ABC's noise for 4 hours, simply because it wasn't just replaying the same video clips continuously. The TV networks were good at showing us footage of the crashes but failed to do much else. A bunch of coworkers had the TV running most of last week - from what I watched, after Tuesday morning it wasn't uncommon for a rumor to be disproven on MeFi before the TV networks announced it.
posted by adamsc at 5:50 PM on September 16, 2001

I hate to say it but it's true... I'm working round the clock at home and work getting the latest AP stories on the Web for work... I get here and you guys are already discussing it.

Anybody want a job? :0)
posted by EricBrooksDotCom at 5:56 PM on September 16, 2001

I guess my point is that webloggers do not do their own investigations--the information they provide usually originates at traditional media sources. Do you think that all these webloggers went to the scene, started to interview the rescue workers and survivors and found the information about the stewardess being tied all by themselves, Mo Nickels? Perhaps that was the case, I really don't know. I would venture to say, however, that nine out of ten times, webloggers do what they are best at: filtering the media. They bypass the endless commercials, the continuously looping clips of the 5-10 videos available, and retransmit the little gems of information reporters find.

What some of the posts seen to indicate is that webloggers are especially good at personalizing the stories and conveying pubic sentiment. I agree with this completely, this is what webloggers do best. However, one might argue that this is not a positive role at all, as personalizing such events drives others to rash, emotional, and irrational decisions. One starts to think with one's heart, rather than with one's mind.

But hey, what do I know, maybe I'm just venting my frustration about this unfortunate tragedy. I still can't believe what has happened.
posted by Witold at 6:54 PM on September 16, 2001

Almost entirely, Blogers and Co. simply repeat what they hear on television.
[...]
I would venture to say, however, that nine out of ten times, webloggers do what they are best at: filtering the media.

And thank God for that! Also however, weblogs/journals have been an incredible source for alternate viewpoints and discussion. This is something that cannot be duplicated in the media.

While the media observes and broadcasts, the web community digests and produces.

Without the web, we would essentially have only one voice and view to hear and internalize. Through interactions on the web, I can completely shape my own conclusions.
posted by fooljay at 7:05 PM on September 16, 2001

They bypass the endless commercials, the continuously looping clips of the 5-10 videos available, and retransmit the little gems of information reporters find.

Dude, I'm not one to plug my site (much) but did you even look at World New York? Maybe 10 percent of what I posted since Tuesday comes from traditional media sources.
posted by Mo Nickels at 9:32 AM on September 17, 2001