1) So far Hurricane Irene ranks as the 10th-deadliest storm since 1980 and to date, it ranks as the 8th most destructive storm economically. I'm sure both those numbers will rise. Meanwhile, it received about the 10th-most media coverage. The Royal wedding was hype. This was news.
2) I found myself using social media -- primarily Facebook -- to gather and share hyper-local news. Social media is not a fad, it's a force.
3) Professional journalists are learning how to work with citizen journalists to gather and share content. Mainstream media is not dead, but it's been redefined as a marriage between professional and citizen journalism.
4) Google Plus still has a way to go. A few smart reporters created situation circles -- a community of individuals draw together by a specific situation -- to help gather and share news and information. But for me, it was a lot easier to share information on Facebook than Google +. Google needs to make it a lot easier to share and search with Google Plus.
Add your lessons here:
Do hurricanes receive too much media coverage? Are they more or less newsworthy than airplane crashes? The avian flu? The iPhone 5? Shark attacks? The Dominique Strauss-Kahn case? The Libyan civil war? The royal wedding? Global warming? Anthony Weiner? The Dallas Cowboys?
What’s the problem with that? Actually, I don’t see any problem with it whatsoever. The level of coverage given to Irene received seems quite appropriate given what we know about its impact.
It wasn’t the worst-case scenario – either for Irene in particular or for hurricanes hitting New York in general. But I don’t see how you dismiss it as hype. If, as Mr. Kurtz says, “the prophets of doom were wrong,” I’m not looking forward to seeing what happens when they’re right.
No comments:
Post a Comment