After reading the first three chapters of “Here Comes Everybody,” I have realized that the speed of news has changed dramatically.
Information regarding anything going on in the world is at our fingertips now, no matter where we are or what the information is. Whether you are telling the world to look out for someone that has something of yours, sharing the recent baseball game’s highlights, or talking about the death of a popular figure in the world, it all has become available and I think that has its advantages and disadvantages.
The advantage is that with it immediately available, we learn about things quicker. We don’t have to wait for news from the other side of the world to pass through news reporters and other media sources so they can tell us, we can find out with a few presses of our keyboard or our phones.
The disadvantage is that if we trust the wrong sources, the information can be unreliable. This is the reason an “amateur” is not a “professional.” Generally, a professional is considered more reliable because they have earned that title through consist quality information that is from quality sources, like direct ones. An amateur may not have those same sources available to them and their information may be better suited as rumor unless properly supported by sources too.
With all the new media available to the public, information seen from the masses may not always be true. Despite the new speed of news, information should be looked into before it is spread, you never know who will believe it.
For those who are football fans…how many trusted THIS source?
Support your statements and you’ll earn credibility, no matter how fast the information is reported, if it’s false, you will tear your credibility to shreds, no matter how famous you are.
I completely agree with your “amateur versus professional” comment. In my post, I also mentioned that Twitter and other social networking sites can be extremely useful for obtaining information, only IF you know how to properly look for it. When writing the post, I also was thinking of sports-related information – often times, I will first learn of a player getting traded, released, signed, etc from Twitter. For example, a few months ago, I learned that Jose Reyes signed with the Marlins through a CREDIBLE source on Twitter. I knew about it hours before websites such as ESPN and MLB officially reported it. However this information was only valuable to me because it was tweeted by a reliable source within Major League Baseball (I can’t remember who it actually was now). Had it simply been one of my friends reporting the news, I would certainly not have taken it seriously. Shirky specifically mentions that “amateurization” of society is feared as a result of internet reliance, but one just has to know how to properly navigate through the internet, in order to effectively gain useful information.
I have to agree with Eric, what makes the source credible? just cause a rumor gets spread to the point where everyone knows about it doesn’t exactly make it true. Other times people misquote or misinterpret what people say.
Very good observation about the credibility of the source. Are there differences between twitter as a source and blogs as sources?
I think the only difference between Twitter as a source and blogs as a source would be the quality AND quantity of the information because of the limitation on characters in a tweet. But like the credibility of a student writing a paper, it’s citing where you get the information. Some users of Twitter and users of blogs are credible sources because they have become deep within the industry that they report on. Their credibility would not require a source because they are the most direct source outside of directly hearing it from them. If they aren’t deep within the organization, they provide a citation that includes a link to where the information was as proof.