I’ve already expressed my thoughts on the social media response to the Boston Marathon explosions on Monday. However, in the name of balance (and following Kenneth‘s lead) I thought I’d take a look at how newspapers covered the Boston story.
The most obvious advantage of social media is that it is ‘of the moment’, allowing near-real-time information flow, something impossible for a newspapers in hard copy format. Whilst no longer carved in stone, printed papers struggle with a publication frequency greater than morning, afternoon and evening edition (with most just opting for daily or weekly); but they do pull out all the stops for breaking news such as the Bostson incidents.
What newspapers can’t deliver in speed, they do make up for in tracking down experts from far and wide to offer opinion and insight. The delay between incident and publication also allows for some synthesis of ‘know facts’ which can make news easier to digest.
With many newspapers moving to online editions (mostly behind paywalls though) there is a distinct blurring between Fleet St and Cyberspace, but one hings for sure, the internat allows us all to get our news faster, and in non traditional ways. As emergency planners it’s critical that we keep up with this demand to ensure the public involved in eemrgencies get information via the most appropraite medium at the right time.
In any case, hopefully “How the papers saw…” won’t be a frequent blog title…
Image Sources: Daily Mail (I refuse to link to their content) or online editions of newspaper shown