Commentary

The News, It Is A-Changin’

It was a little before 9 a.m.

I was chatting with two students.

Another student came in, and asked if we had heard a plane had hit a building in New York City.

We hadn’t, but I assumed it was a light private plane, and the pilot had mechanical difficulty or problems with wind turbulence.

A minute or so later, another student came in. It was a passenger jet, she said.

The first student had read the information in a text from a friend, who had received it from another friend, who may have heard it somewhere else. The second student had read it while surfing a news site on the Internet. In a few moments I became aware of how news dissemination had changed, and it was the youth who were going to lead the information revolution.

A half-hour later, in an upper division journalism class, we were flipping between TV channels, and students were texting with friends on campus and in other states.

By 12:30 p.m., the beginning time for my popular culture and the media class, every one of the 240 students heard about the murders and terrorism that would become known as 9/11. Most had not seen it on TV nor heard about it from radio. There was no way I was going to give that day’s prepared lecture. The students needed to talk, to tell others what they heard, to listen to what others had heard. To cry; to express rage. And, most of all, they needed to hear the conflicting information, and learn the facts.

For the first century of colonial America, news was transmitted at the pace of a fast horse and rider. But even then, most citizens read the news only when they wandered into a local coffee shop or tavern and saw the information posted on a wall. The first newspaper, Boston’s Publick Occurrences, lasted but one issue, dying in 1690. The next newspaper, the Boston News-Letter, wasn’t published until 14 years later. Fifteen years passed before there was another newspaper. By the Revolution, the major cities along the eastern seaboard had weekly newspapers, with news from England taking up to three months to reach the American shores and be printed. News from one colony to another might take a couple of weeks or more. All of it was subject to censorship by the colonial governors.

By the Civil War, reporters in the field could transmit news by telegraph—assuming that competitors or the other side didn’t cut the wires. Even the most efficient operation took at least a day to gather, write, transmit, and then print the news.

Radio brought World Wars I and II closer to Americans. Photojournalists—with film, innumerable developing chemicals, and restricted by the speed of couriers, the mail service, and publication delays—gave Americans both photos and newsreel images of war.

Television gave us better access to learning about wars in Korea and Vietnam.

And then came the Persian Gulf War, and the full use of satellite communication. Although CNN, the first 24-hour news operation, was the only network to record the destruction of the Challenger in January 1986, it was still seen as a minor network, with audiences of thousands not millions. The Persian Gulf War changed that, along with the nature of the news industry. CNN built an audience during Operation Desert Shield, from late Summer 1990 to Jan. 16, 1991. On that evening, the beginning of Desert Storm, CNN was the only American-based news operation in Iraq. From the al-Rashid Hotel, its three correspondents and their teams transmitted news and video as the U.S. sent missiles into Baghdad.

Two decades later, individual media have almost replaced mass media as sources for first information. Twitter, Facebook, Linked-in, and innumerable ways to text message now link individuals and groups. Individuals can also transmit photos and video from cell phones to You Tube and dozens of other hosts, making everyone with a cell phone a temporary reporter or photojournalist. It also leads to extensive problems in discerning the facts from rumors and propaganda. The media—individual and mass—have united a world’s people.

In Iran, Tunisia, and Egypt, it was Facebook and Twitter, not state-run mass media, that gave the people communication to launch their protests that would lead to the fall of two authoritarian governments.

On May 1, in a nine-minute television address beginning at 11:35 p.m., EST, President Obama t old the world that Navy SEALs had successfully completed their mission to kill Osama bin Laden. Those not at their radio or TV sets learned about it from messages and video on their cell phones or computers.

It is still be the responsibility of the mass media–of radio, television, newspapers, and magazines–to give in-depth coverage and analysis of the events. But, for millions worldwide, it is no longer the mass media that establishes the first alerts.

Walter Brasch is an award-winning syndicated columnist, the author of 17 books, and a retired university journalism professor. His latest book is Before the First Snow, a look at the nation’s counterculture.


Article Tools:  Print   Email

3 Responses for “The News, It Is A-Changin’”

  1. Rexi44 says:

    “On May 1, in a nine-minute television address beginning at 11:35 p.m., EST, President Obama t old the world that Navy SEALs had successfully completed their mission to kill Osama bin Laden. Those not at their radio or TV sets learned about it from messages and video on their cell phones or computers.”

    Those of us at our computers in the hour before the address learned what had happened from Twitter and Facebook well before the announcement.

  2. M. Lucky says:

    The examples used here don’t seem very convincing to me. I think most of us learned about 9/11 on television, where we were able to watch the attack in progress. It is simply not true to suggest that those who received the news via text messages from friends got the information more efficiently. Similarly, with the bin Laden announcement, the “traditional” broadcast media also preceded the president’s official announcement. It is doubtful that twitter or facebook reports were online much more than a minute or two earlier, and if they were, no one would have been able to know that they were anything but internet rumor mongering without the confirmation of more traditional information sources. I mean, come on: it’s neato that we have social media, but let’s not exagerrate. It hasn’t “united a world’s people” or made everybody with a cell phone into a credible reporter.

  3. So far, of dozens of comments I have received from various sources, about half say that social media is how they found out; about half said TV media is how they found out. This is not a scientific poll, of course. BUT, I don’t think any reader actually saw the attack in real-time, as M. Lucky states. I also never said that social media is more efficient, only that it was a major way to get first information. V media, as I stated in article, did give the official explanation. BUT, people did take that info and pass it to others by numerous methods, as stated. Also, there was that Pakistani citizen who reporter, by Twitter, the attack as it was happening but didn’t know what it was he was reporting. And, I NEVER stated that the social media (cell phones, notably) EVER made one a credible reporter–just that they made people reporters. Nevertheless, thank you for your input.

Leave a Reply

Article Tools:  Print   Email
Copyright © 2008 The Public Record. All rights reserved. Branding services provided by www.AndrewToschi.com Quantcast