A whole lot of questions are being asked about whether the Twitter #mumbai feed was citizen journalism or not. Many 'sides' are emerging in this debate. I found this post (thru' a tweet by @MaryHodder) which asks How Should Journalists Use Twitter? I'm not so sure it's the right question to be asking ... here's what I said in a comment there:
"I was one of those Tweeting the terror attacks from my apartment in Mumbai, which was about 8 kms away from the centre of the attacks. When I began tweeting about what I was seeing on tv (yes) and re-tweeting accounts others were talking of from the ground, I don't think there was any conscious intention for the twitter stream to become a source of citizen journalism. We were sharing our confusion, our shock, our sadness, our rage. We also then began sharing useful information around injured lists and what was required by hospitals as they emerged. Some twitterers in Mumbai were on the ground sending updates from hospitals and from the centre of the attacks.
That tools like twitter, blogs, flickr enabled this spontaneous outpouring of emotion, information, rumours, panic, confusion, anger is quite amazing to me. The twitter #mumbai stream reflected all these nuances as we experienced them. If this isn't a form of reporting, tell me why. I do believe it brought a real (face to the) horror to the terror attacks to the world, where people could empathize with what was going on. India is not alone in its fight against terrorism. Just yesterday, I wrote in a commentary at CNN:
"The "we" I speak of is not an organization but a loosely joined community. We are bonded, and I truly believe that in the face of utter horror, wherever it might occur, we have a strong pillar in this emotional connection we feel as equal human beings and not in our narrow identities prescribed by nationality or religion or race or gender. This is an evolving revolution sparked by how people are using social tools on the Web."
That's the revolution really - the discourse must shift from an argument about one vs the other into a discourse around how social tools are allowing people to channel their emotions and harness them to mobilize into action. It's not a war nor an either-or between MSM and citizen reporting. We saw a symbiotic relationship between the two during this disaster. Each helped the other. MSM acknowledges it - look at the number of stories being done on how Twitter worked (or didn't). Likewise with bloggers and tweeters, who leant on mainstream media as their source of information in many instances."
The full piece I wrote for CNN is here - How social media shared pain and rage in Mumbai
Update:
See Neha's roundup of posts in criticism of TV reporting during the crisis at Global Voices Online - don't miss the comments there.
And Stuart's call for counter-intuitive thinking.
Link to original post