A disturbing trend in journalism:
As if the ethics of the mainstream media aren’t questionable enough in the first place, I’m noticing a disturbing trend: The use of Facebook, web forums, and other social networking sites as sources.
Example, from an article on the renaming of the Sears tower:
More than 90,000 people have joined the group “People Against the Sears Tower Name Change,” on the social networking Web site Facebook.
“This name change is absurd,” one member wrote. “Would Paris change the name of the Eiffel Tower? Or London change Buckingham Palace? Or New York, the Statue of Liberty? I believe the Illinois Congress needs to proclaim the Sears Tower a recognizable landmark that is known all over the world by people who have traveled to Chicago.”
The group has gathered more than 34,000 signatures on an online petition against the name change. The name change seemed to be a fait accompli, though.
…
That doesn’t matter to those against the name change.
“I asked a cabdriver to take me to the Willis tower. He said, ‘Where the hell is that?’” a member of the Facebook group wrote. “That pretty much sums it up. No one will start calling it the Willis Tower.”
It’s laziness in journalism, pure and simple. Who gives a rip if there are 90,000 members of a Facebook group? In addition to it being completely irrelevant (it’s not like joining a Facebook group is actual activism), it’s also an insignificant number. For comparison, there are 1,456,757 members in a group called “I Dont care How Comfortable Crocs Are, You Look Like A Dumbass.” and another 1,281,507 members in “I Want To Punch Slow Walking People In The Back Of The Head.”
Note, also, the citation of unnamed members. This frees the journalist from obtaining permission to quote. Since they’re already lazy enough to only bother surfing Facebook for sources, it’s not much of a leap for me to imagine complete falsification of quotes. Obviously, it’s entirely possible to do that with ‘real’ sources and quotes as well, but it’s more difficult when you use anonymity sparingly. Unnamed sources should be used infrequently and only when absolutely necessary – I’m sure this journalist could have found a few people on the street willing to share their thoughts, with a name attached.
This may seem like a small nit to pick, and it is – for this story. My concern is that this practice is going to become more and more common, more and more mainstream, and thus even more journalistic integrity will be lost.
…”said one blogger.”
Great point, Laurel. So-called journalists *are* lazy these days and too frequently serve as commentators rather than journalists. We’re seeing this increasingly in both print and broadcast – and the scary part is there are people out there who still gobble up that media as truth.
Off topic from your “journalism” theme, but the part that really got to me in the excerpt was the Facebook jackass who thought his opinion really matters on the naming of somebody else’s private property. I’m sure he’d protest if I gathered 90,000 of my closest online friends to sign a petition to rename his house “Jackass’ Brothel of Anti-Capitalism”. On second thought, that may be a badge of honor to him.
They want to choose the name? Then they need to buy it. Instead they’re just a bunch of Statist cowards who want to use the full force of government to do their dirty work. Immoral looters.
I saw your post just after reading this… I fell over laughing.
http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20090717