The phenomenon of live video or audio being available by way
of “citizen journalism” has changed the way Americans look at the mass media
and has changed what they expect from their news. The repeated instances of police involved
shootings has been an even more widespread issue precisely because of the accompaniment
of live video which was captured by witnesses.
A recent article on The Hill
examined the role of a live video of Hillary Clinton exiting a 9/11 ceremony
amid what appeared to be health concerns.
The article goes on to describe this as a non-story had it not been for
the video, which shows that there was clearly something wrong that could not be
readily dismissed by her team and supporters (Concha, 2016).
However, as video editing and altering becomes easier and
more prevalent, can we really trust what we see in the video. While most of these videos do show a real
glimpse of an event, there is a growth of pranksters and content creators who
thrive on deceptive videos. Whether to
play into their narrative or to just gain clicks, these are videos which don’t
paint an accurate picture. Video content
from individual citizens is not going away, but its value to the news audience
may be diminished. If certain videos can
be shown to be hoaxes, that will put into question the validity of all the
others. Without being able to lean on
this crutch, journalists may need to do more investigative reporting to uncover
these things. While a video may be a
good place to start, I don’t think news outlets can be so cavalier when
exploring the news through the content of someone they don’t know. As technology moves the clock forward, we may
need to dial journalism back to a time when stories needed to be uncovered
rather than it going viral without explanation.
Concha, J. (2016). How a smartphone camera changed the
discussion on Clinton's health. The Hill. Retrieved from
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/295607-how-a-smartphone-camera-changed-the-discussion-on-clintons-health
No comments:
Post a Comment