The controversy over NBC's decision to broadcast the thoughts of Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-hui illustrates the daily dilemmas faced by news journalists.
Most of their counterparts would find it difficult to justify withholding the tapes.
"We are not censors," says John Ryley, Sky's head of news, succinctly summing up the consensus on this side of the Atlantic.
But once the controversy over the screening of Cho's "multimedia manifesto" recedes, the massacre is likely to be remembered as a great leap forward in the evolution of Internet news.
Social networking sites including Facebook and MySpace were an integral part of the event -- survivors reportedly logged on to find out what was taking place even as Cho continued his rampage.
Soon after, the rest of the world joined them, posting messages of support, sympathy and outrage online. In the aftermath, tributes, eyewitness accounts, photos and video appeared on the Internet.
"Old media" outlets responded by plundering material posted on the Web and pumping their own content into the online ether. The Internet encouraged a collective expression of emotion, which has been faithfully reported by established media outlets: "Students turn to Web in time of tragedy," said the Los Angeles Times last week.
It helps that nearby Roanoke is one of the most wired cities in the US and that Virginia Tech's students are part of the most Web-literate generation in history. But the Internet has done more than create an online community of grief; the immediacy of the medium helped to relay the full horror of the event. Once again, "citizen journalists" armed with mobile phones supplied invaluable material, including pictures and video footage of the shootings, to established news organizations.
resource
Some, including CNN, snapped up exclusive rights to phone footage. Other broadcasters and newspapers have been busy pilfering whatever content they can from cyberspace, often with scant regard for copyright. Suddenly, the Internet looks less like a threat to "old media," and more like a resource it can easily exploit.
That is partly because established outlets have marched online.
Sky News relaunched its Web site last Thursday and plans to shift more resources online. The Daily Telegraph has staked its future on the Internet and the Times is the latest newspaper to invest heavily in its online offering.
Anne Spackman, the editor-in-chief of Times Online, says the Virginia coverage "feels like a coming-of-age moment."
She points out that "even a year ago" technological constraints meant her site would have been unable to carry the video footage, including a link to footage of the carnage filmed by a student. Nor could it have displayed Cho's chilling video messages.
"In the early day of the Internet, we were all excited that it allowed us to get stories out more quickly, but essentially it was the same information the paper carried the next day," she said. "The Internet hasn't just expanded our coverage, it has made it much deeper and richer."
In that respect, at least, newspapers are catching up with broadcasters, who have been screening "user-generated content" sent in by viewers for years, notably during Hurricane Katrina.
Gratifyingly for Spackman, a user at US Web site Fark.com, which aggregates news from sources around the globe, asked last week: "Why does the London Times have better reporting than we do?"
"Fark is exactly the kind of site that people said would kill off papers like us," Spackman points out.
But newspapers still have the best content, she claims, and "people will search that out."
The killings led to a spike in Internet traffic as well as TV audiences. Sky's Web site had 4 million page impressions on Monday, a million more than usual, and major US news sites experienced a huge increase in volume. CNBC's Web site saw a 157 percent rise in traffic from Sunday to Tuesday.
Alex Burmaster, an Internet analyst at Nielsen Netratings, said: "More people are now going to the Internet for news because it's not just static content. Since the advent of broadband the Internet has evolved hugely in terms of audio and video content and news is a massive beneficiary."
This is "convergence" being played out in real time, but its arrival has been nervously awaited by many traditional news organizations. If information is available, unfiltered and uncensored, online, why should consumers turn to them to find it? The answer, as the Virginia shootings illustrated, is that the Internet's greatest strength, its immediacy, cannot compensate for its biggest weakness -- inaccuracy. False reports about the killer's identity were circulating online within hours.
"We had pictures of `the killer' on Tuesday morning," Spackman said, "but our picture desk expressed reservations."
Sure enough, it wasn't him.
"People trust brands like us because we have built a reputation for checking facts over decades," she said. "It is basic, sound journalistic practice."
fact-checking
Ryley agrees that the widespread dissemination of information "will reinforce the brand value of trusted organizations. But at the same time it will put a lot of pressure on all of us to check and double-check. It used to be your own staff that brought stuff in. Now you need journalists who are not just curious, but skeptical."
He says user-generated content is "another source, just as the diaries of infantrymen are a source for a historian studying Waterloo."
News organizations must do what they have always done, verifying its authenticity before airing or printing it.
"The joy of the Internet is if you make a mistake you can take it down quickly. With a newspaper, it's there forever," Spackman said.
But although a sophisticated public knows it will find gossip, innuendo and speculation online, it expects responsible news outlets to deal only in hard facts.
Established media must also meet higher standards of taste and decency as well as accuracy. That explains why NBC was forced to apologize for screening Cho's videos last week.
Chris Shaw, who oversees Five's news and current affairs output, argues the Internet can affect decision-making.
"I don't think TV would have shown this video so quickly if they didn't know if would be on the Internet within hours," he said.
The Internet is influencing the tone of mainstream media coverage in more subtle ways too, says FT executive John Lloyd. He says Israelis' view of the recent war with Lebanon was profoundly affected by "e-mails and photos [from Israeli soldiers] that were streaming back in real time."
Most of them questioned why they were on the front line and that had a profound effect on public sentiment.
Beyond that, Lloyd said, "hooking into these streams of emotion is now becoming a very large part of the way these events are covered. You see emotions in blogs and on the Internet that, for the most part, are kept out of objective news coverage."
"That constitutes a threat to the traditional media operations [because] some people are grasping the news by emotion rather than through a narrative," he said.
Covering horrific events in an era of 24-hour news presents its own challenges for "old media." But if they can remain impartial and objective in the face of this trend, they could find their output becomes more valuable, and sought-after, than ever.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers