Twitter and a tablet: tools of the DIY journalist?

I’m in Los Angeles this week for a web conference. Naturally, when you stick a bunch of IT and web specialists together, the topic of social media surfaces. So far I have attended two sessions on social media and mobile. Tomorrow holds a third.

With all this discussion on social media, I am seriously tempted to bust out this video tomorrow morning at breakfast. It’s an advert for The Guardian, and I still don’t know how I feel about it.

What is happening here? Clearly The Guardian is commenting on the instantaneous and ubiquitous nature of social media. The newspaper’s editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, explains that the advert is part of a re-branding initiative. The Guardian believes in open journalism, and “Big Bad Wolf” is meant to promote that philosophy.

While I understand the significant value of open journalism, this advert still makes me uneasy, for it speaks to the often unrecognized (or overlooked) power of social media.

Watch the video again. See how quickly the public’s opinion jumps from empathy and justification, to anger, to suspicion, back to empathy, and finally to rage – not against the murderous pigs, mind, but the economic structures that “caused” the pigs to murder in the first place. All these shifts in public opinion were encouraged and fueled by uploaded video from smartphones, tweets, and personal commentary on social networks.

Social media is a useful tool – one that integrates voices into the news that would have never been publicly and widely shared otherwise. As with any tool, however, comes responsibility. A healthy dose of skepticism is important when utilizing social media. Is there a point when too many voices actually hinders objective journalism? A point when it complicates court proceedings and crime investigations? Does “open news” invite too many perspectives to the table, thus creating a noisy squabble of citizen and do-it-yourself broadcasters? Or does it add to, as The Guardian puts it, “the whole picture”? If a news organization tried to streamline and reduce the noise of social media, would that be considered censorship?

This advert presents me with a list of questions which, in turn, produces even more questions. These sort of queries will only continue as the honeymoon phase of social media ends, and the legal cases begin. I’m very interested in your thoughts. How do you interpret this new advert from The Guardian? What is your opinion of the role that social media plays in journalism?

 

Doctor Who & David Yates: disaster or brilliance?

Courtesy BBC America

 

The Guardian offered an editorial today, written by Dan Martin, on the announcement that Yates is planning to direct a new Doctor Who big-screen movie. Martin’s article precisely captures my thoughts and feelings on this piece of Doctor Who-related news. Now this is David Yates of Harry Potter fame and, before that, The Way We Live Now and the superb BBC’s State of Play. Despite his abilities, the idea of a Doctor Who film that “starts from scratch” is deeply unsettling. As Martin argues, “The genius of Russell T Davies’s 2005 revival was that it wasn’t a reboot at all, but the continuation of one long story that started in 1963…But it managed that without new fans requiring any pre-knowledge whatsoever.” 

 

Moreover, this long-standing story that has spanned nearly 50 years is perfectly suited for the TV medium. Fans can tune in weekly and follow the progression of the show with their own lives. I cannot comprehend condensing the complexity and development of Doctor Who into a two-hour film. Maybe that notes a lack of imagination on my part. But right now, I’m nervous that Yates might not fully understand the complicated, nuanced character of the Doctor, nor appreciate the longevity of the television series, nor the near-obsessive passion of the series’ fans. After all, the past two executive directors of Doctor Who (T. Davies and Steven Moffat) started out as nerdy fans of the Doctor Who universe. They knew the insides and outs of the canon and how the story interacted with fans over the decades.

 

Some may argue that Yates accomplished a similar translation by transforming the final Harry Potter books to film. How is a television series any different? Despite the similarity in visual form, television and film function very differently, and if a director does not fully understand or appreciate the televisual form, then moving that story into a cinematic form could prove messy. It’s still too early to say how – or even if – this “bigscreen” movie will manifest. Perhaps it will be brilliant. But I’m still nervous. As Moffat tweeted earlier today: “Announcing my personal moonshot, starting from scratch. No money, no plan, no help from NASA. But I know where the moon is – I’ve seen it.” Snarky? A little. But he does have a point.

 

Fans seem to be divided in their opinions. Are you a fan of Doctor Who? How do you feel about the series being made into a full-length motion picture?