Iranians Protest Election, Tweeps Protest CNN

Media that did a good job: Andrew Sullivan's blog, BBC News, the Lede blog of NY Times, niacblog.wordpress.com, tehranbureau.com.

What elections?: CNN, (MSNBC has better coverage, acknowledging, you know, that something did happen over there). The network news did and will cover it, though they cannot do much as they are being kicked out and are under resourced there. I especially liked Today's report that nabbed Bibi Netanyahu for an interview followed by Meredith Viera announcing a wacky surprise for the 17 kid strong Duggar family. Now that's journalism!

@rosseau: Is the Today show really journalism, though? I'd call it more of a morning cocktail of data--a little bit of soft journalism, human interest, cooking segments, fireman-who-rescued-puppy-from-drainpipe kind of television. We could argue whether or not this is the best use of NBC's broadcast resources, but I won't begrudge them the basis of their current format. (Also, the Duggars have 18 kids.)
--
And while I'm all for news consumers redirecting the conversation when their main source isn't fulfilling the need, I also fear that it could quickly turn into the inmates running the asylum. Just like news orgs shouldn't be answerable to the interests of the corporations that own them, they shouldn't be beholden to the whims of the People, either. Suppose after careful review from an international democracy panel, it's determined that Ahmedinejad did win the election after all? Should the news orgs question that just because it seems contrary to what the Twitter-users are posting?
--
Twitter is my fave social medium, by the way.

perhaps what this situation will do, if any, is show the public who really has the political power. Namely the clerics, the Supreme Leader.

Talk about keeping them honest. Twitter put CNN to shame. The people finally have a powerful voice when it comes to elections and also the news media.

Just to let you know you can read the #cnnfail and #iranelection tweets at http://CNNfail.com

@onesidemakesyougrowsmaller: No Today isn't a news broadcast but millions of people do seem to think it is. If the US was a tiny country with tens of millions of people, then I wouldn't bedrudge these shows a frivolous wedding story or cat story. But as we have a global reach, influence and empire, with everything we do--electing GWB, creating the recession--having a fundamental impact on the rest of the world, then I object to the tabloid pablum offered by our media. Not to sound like those jaded, conspiratorial young people who think everything in corporate America is evil, but I do hope for serious media reform in this country. Iran seems to block its new media (like Twitter which is a good anecdotal source) when it becomes critical of the government; nevertheless thousands of people risk their freedom to protest. In America, you would get a sense that no such uprising or demonstrated anger could occur as we are too busy following the Palin/Letterman feud and what Jon actually did to Kate and the children. As the past eight years have proven, it is very easy to manipulate people through the media and this affects millions througout the rest of the world. Of course this is old hat, obvious to all, but still needs to be said, in the hopes that we can fix MSM in this country so that we can have a better educated, well informed citizenry. After all, a country is only as good/smart/successful as its people. End diatribe.
.
Way off topic, but congrats to the Lakers. Finally we Californians have something to feel good about and no longer have to bury our head in shame. Well, we do but not for this thing!
.
A

I was thrilled that the coverage bumped up on Sunday morning... I immediately thought of CNNfail. Can't tell how much it had to do with it but it couldn't have hurt. CNN abuses twitter more than any other network, they must have noticed.
.
It's things like these btw that make me think less of all the people who call Twitter "useless." This is what makes Twitter great, not the "I'm eating a sandwich lol" tweets.

[...] Another Time article [...]

Cross-posted on JNS's thread:

they're really another source rather than a replacement,/i>
.
There still remains important value in assessing the 'big pictures' when evaluating information. One phenomenon that needs to be controlled for is 'self-selection'.
.
Just as an example, if you were to sample the comment threads here at Swampland, you would think that Liberals outnumber Conservatives 20 to one. Doing the same exercise at Jake Tapper's site and you would assume that Conservatives outnumber Liberals by the same ratio. Both sites are allegedly MOR News sites so its not the news content that drives the difference but the way that communities grow once they've been seeded.
.
What does that have to do with Twitter? Only that the information coming out of Iran via that medium will have a very specific viewpoint and agenda dictated by the medium itself and the circumstance of it being the only available 'non-official' information feed.
.
So while Twitter might be a fine source of raw information, there is still an imporrtant role to be played by traditional media to try and create a larger context.

[...] View original here: The Iran Election: Twitter’s Big Moment (Time Magazine) [...]

[...] weekend newsrooms or if they just didn’t see the story as important. James Poniewozik has a good suggestion as to why so many people felt letdown by the networks: As much talk as there is about Twitter and [...]

[...] James Poniewozik [...]

@rosseau -- sorry, but when anyone talks about "media reform," my eyes glaze over and my ears pound with alternating calls of "First Amendment!" and "Change the Dial!"
.
First of all, to assail Today as what is wrong with journalism is pretty baseless -- yeah it has its cooking segments and human interest, but it also DOES cover a SIGNIFICANT amount of national and international news (albeit in an abbreviated format). Viewers of Today are, I would venture, fairly articulate about the state of our country and even, maybe, our world. Ripping the show just comes off as elitism -- my news sources are "better than" yours, so your news source is to blame for the supposed "ill-informed" nature of our population -- without actually stopping to ask whether Americans do or do not largely have the "correct" or "fairly accurate/complete" picture of what was going on. I practically guarantee that if you polled regular watchers of "Today" (or GMA, or The Early Show, or Morning Joe, to name a few others), the VAST majority would have correctly answered to the question "What's up with Iran's elections?" that Ahmadinejad had been declared the winner but there were concerns over electoral fraud, etc.
.
Second -- "media reform"? By and from who, the Ministry of Truth? While that may appeal to the Orwellian residents of Oceania, I'd prefer that "media reform" take place the way it always has -- by consumers going to better/more accurate/more reputable media sources. Yes, we will get some "infotainment" from that for what the elites might call the "unwashed masses" or the "What's Wrong With Kansas? crowd" (talk about the dumbest book ever written -- it proved that nothing was wrong with Kansans, but plenty was wrong with the author's completely outsized ego and sense of self-righteousness), but we will also get increased media alternatives stepping into the market void for more affluent/educated consumers who want more detailed info, leading to more readers, say, for the Economist....where smart, affluent readers go, advertisers (and thus continued viability for good media) will follow...
.
And if not, well, that's our fault...but I'd much rather fail that way than from some totally unconstitutional, Big Brother-style "media reform."

JP asked: "If you were following the election story over the weekend, let us know if you thought any outlets did an especially good (or bad) job"
.
I may be biased but BBC News is my go-to media org. for international news. Both the BBC and CNN-International (direct competitiors) seemed to have more interest in the Iranian situation from the start.

@rosseau -- and as for Americans being "manipulated by the media" for the past 8 years, that argument is laughable. GWB left office with the lowest approval rating of any President -- a sure sign that the media had, quite accurately, portrayed the blunderings of his administration.
.
At the same time, Congress had an EVEN LOWER approval rating -- again, a sign that the media was DOING ITS JOB to inform us that the LEGISLATIVE branch of our government was just as asleep at the wheel (despite having a Democratic majority) as the President, and that we should be MORE mad at them for shirking their co-equal duty under balance of power than at GWB for going as far as Congress would allow.

@chaddogg: Well, first of all, I never said nor implied that media reform should mean state run media. I didn't say anything about how media should be reformed--and it does need to be--actually, so let me explain. We can start off by eliminating stenography and political propoganda in favor of real investigation. Too often, media--and I mean cable media--are content to have one guy from one side and another guy from another and they can say anything, no matter how factually innacurate or manipulative and the reporter will not dare question or investigate the claims. This is not a political point or an argument for media being liberal or conservative; all sides do it and the government does it, both GWB amd BHO's administration when they want to curry popular support. Many examples but let's use the runup to the Iraq War where Cheney's on air pronouncements that the US would be greeted as liberators and the administration's tacit and overt charges that 9/11 and Iraq were linked. Just two examples of media manipulation by inaction: the mainstream media does not investigate claims and presents two sides to every issue when a cursory examination of one or both reveals clear innaccuracies and distortions. As for the print media, the bastion, the standard of newspapers did have Iraq apologists who towed the admin's line--Judith Miller and Tom Freidman--so it's integrity was also questioned.
.
And that's the problem with the MSM: they did not question our leaders for too long focusing instead on modern American celebrity culture. And not only our leaders but our institutions and social programs (Where could/can you find an in-depth analysis of health care on cable news that mentions how many millions of dollars go to politicians by the insurance/pharma lobby and how that effects legislation. As it is Dems want a public program, Repubs are against but can the spokespeople/politicians really be counted on to look at the issue honestly?) It's just one side says this and another side says this and then you decide! But the American people are not experts in social or foreign policy; that is what the media is supposed to be for-our repsrentative for truth so we can make informed decisions on the state on the state of our country. In a democracy, where the people spur the government to action, this is a vital component.
.
So that is what I mean by media reform-get rid of the propaganda spewed by the talking heads who have a clear interest in promoting their view and start by investigating. Also, don't treat the masses as dumb, only being able to comprehend trivial soft news. We can take an hour on Pakistan but the reason we aren't getting one, I suspect, is because there would be no ad revenue. And that's another thing--journalism is not like any other business; it's not aluminium siding. It's in my mind, a vital part of civilization and democracy. Sure, make a profit if you can, but don't dumb down news or in the worst case, appeal to a niche of idealogical viewers (Fox NEws has the higherst numbers in cable media. Fox is also now the cliche of partisan, dishonest, innaccurate demagoguery.) I don't have any idea of what to do with dying newspapers and if/how to charge for new media but TV media based on all the things I mentioned does need serious reform.
.
Your point about the free marketization of media is well and good, but I wonder how many busy Americans will take the time to find the smart report or news service when the TV is right there. Frankly, I think they shouldn't have to dig to find good journalism but that leaves them open for bad journalism-Fox News again. And for your point of the arrogance of elitism, if only the smart and affluent(not the same thing) direct media, then how is that not elitist? If you are using elitism pejoratively. The smart and affluent do not watch FoX, yet, a third time, it has the highest numbers. I think the media educate the people--I think it should be part of the job--so bad media produces uninformed, uncritical people. It's not that they are not smart, they could be busy to hunt down good sources or they could buy in to all news is idealogical so they would listen to what they want to hear.
.
Wow, way too long. If you are still reading, know that I would much rather talk about what happened to Claire and whether those New Directions kids will ever discover the pun on this TV blog. But your post brought out the windbag lecturer in me. Actually, you probably already watch the Daily Show which makes these points brief and with much more funny. But to answer your points: yes, the media rightly called out Bush and Congress but they still treat politicians with kid gloves with the false equivalency thing (see the "dueling speeches" of Obama and an unquestioned, unexamined Cheney). See also this great piece of media analysis on Bill Moyer's program (connection scuzzy; go to his archive section; its a recent show and a superlative analysis of media)
-
For all those who braved reading this and who did not fall asleep, I swear I am NOT the guy at the party who corners people by not shutting up. Chad, feel free to post your own thousand word response, though I might get banned for length and idiocy. Whatever our disagreements on this topic, you are a wise TV guy and we can together laugh at the Scottish Conan guy. Cheers

@PhilanthropyCFP & @ImpactMovie- Having worked in the TV business in my prior career, I can tell you first hand how the emergence of cable TV networks marked a beginning in the decline of the major broadcast networks. The evening news programs couldn't compete with the likes of 24 hour cable news machines. We are at another moment in time when great change is upon us. 24 hour cable TV news no longer is the first to cover a story, Twitter is. The speed of information is no longer measured in live, satellite television, but rather in Tweet Speed. A few weeks ago, when the small earthquake was reported in California, I was on Twitter. Instantly, reports of the quake came in from Tweets. The news media didn't pick up the story for quite a while. I noticed this lag time and laughed, because I knew at the time that Twitter had beaten CNN. The news networks won't go away, but they are no longer the first to cover the story. If they are smart, they will find more ways to work Twitter and other social networking applications into their services.

not a replacement because there is currently no true method to verify the source as factual and true reporting. If anything it is a big fat Zit on prom night. I am in no way corrilating directly that twitter is a zit. Allow me to futher explain. Mumbai and Tehran have things in common when it came to twitter both had attention and personalization to the matter due to the twitters use. All twitter can do is another method on the internet to ruin the glamor parade in cable news and show them the hidden ugly things in teh world and bring it to the open.
.
the competitions with Kutcher is prime example.

[...] in case you've been living under a rock, Twitter is making news this week because of its role in the flow of information regarding the Iranian elections. According [...]

[...] Why Twitter Is the Medium of the Movement”, publicado hoje na Time Magazine. E aqui, E aqui o artigo “Iranians Protest Election, Tweeps Protest CNN”, também da [...]

[...] The Iran Election: Twitter’s Big Movement (Time) [...]

[...] and get-out-to-vote campaigns using mobile devices and SMS.”  Here in 2009, look at how Twitter was used during the Iran election protests as well as mobile devices.  The US Government even got [...]

[...] Iranians Protest Election, Tweeps Protest CNN TIME, James Poniewozik, 15 June 2009 http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2009/06/15/iranians-protest-election-tweeps-protest-cnn/ Extract: “As much talk as there is about Twitter and other social media supplanting the likes of CNN in covering breaking news, they’re really another source rather than a replacement—and Twitter users know that as well as anyone else. Thus, they want—and demand—big news organizations to step up, nimbly and responsively, to cover fast-changing events like this….If you follow the streams of tweets on the Iran election, they are unsurprisingly favorable to Mousavi, given that the conversation is dominated by Westerners and the sort of younger, urban Iranians who were Mousavi’s base. One source of frustration seemed to be the reluctance of mainstream news organizations, CNN included, to quickly question the legitimacy of the vote—something hard to ascertain, however fishy things seemed, because Western news organizations don’t have the kind of field polling and research in Iran that they do in, say, New Hampshire.” [...]

[...] fraction of what it is now. That famous plane in the Hudson hadn’t happened yet, nor had the election in Iran. Tribune Co hadn’t declared bankruptcy. Detroit’s dailies still printed daily. The [...]

[...] as CNN in covering breaking news, they are really just another source rather than a replacement (Poniewozik, [...]