Media: citizen journalists
By Richard North - October 28, 2024
Without really setting out to make it so, coverage of the Ukraine conflict – in particular the fighting in the east of the country – has become a litmus test on the performance of the legacy media.
Thus, the conflict is being played out at two levels – what is actually happening on the ground, and what is being reported or omitted, providing the meat of the comparison.
This is particularly relevant at the moment, given a speech by Elon Musk extolling “citizen journalism” as being “infinitely superior” to what he also calls the legacy media.
The key part of his speech makes for interesting reading. “Legacy Media”, he says, “is from a time when in order to read the news it had to go through a centralised institution”. But now, he avers, “You don’t need that anymore, you have the Internet”.
In Musk’s view – which might just be a tad partisan – “that’s why X is the future”. “It’s Citizen Journalism”, he proclaims – the capitals are his. This is news “by the people, for the people”. By contrast, the legacy media “is controlled by a handful of editors in chiefs. They decide, but on X you get to hear from actual experts in the field”.
Needless to say, these assertions don’t go entirely unchallenged. One comment questions whether citizen journalism really is superior, pointing out that the claim “overlooks the critical issues of misinformation, lack of editorial standards, and the potential for echo chambers”. These, the writer says, “can undermine the credibility and reliability of news in a decentralised information landscape”.
Such points, plausible enough in their own right, are somewhat undermined by the identical post being repeated another two times, under different names. It might be said that someone is protesting too much – certainly too often.
One of the iterations is answered, where a writer points out that by “editorial standards” is meant the rigour exercised by the likes of WaPo, Al Jazeera or the BBC – latterly of Chris Kaba fame.
“People”, says the writer, “discover quickly which social media poster is legit and they support that poster”. He adds that the MSM (not yet on-message with the legacy media) has little to no credibility anymore and its being dumped at a huge rate. Yes, he concedes, there is misinformation, and there are conditional and ideological posters, but the readers usually sort them.
In this, he has a point. The quality and utility of Twitter, as I have remarked before, depends on the ability to fine-tune one’s own personal timeline, to present a selection of material that covers the necessary ground. It is also possible to do subject word-searches, to build up detail on specific issues, and these can be a fruitful source of information.
In many instances, I share interesting tweets with others in my circle, and they perform the same service for me, through which I often get to read material that I otherwise might have missed. Media outlets often post tweets on their own websites, to which one can refer.
I would take Musk to task though (a cat may look at a king) in his assertion that this is solely a matter of citizen journalism. A particular utility of social media – and Twitter in particular – is that many official bodies and high persons are by-passing the legacy media, or augmenting its coverage, with posts of their own.
It should be recalled that, when Joe Biden decided to step down from the presidential race, his aides posted the news exclusively on Twitter, leaving the legacy media to feed off that source. In this case and many others, Twitter was the official news.
To that extent, I do not see social media as a replacement for the legacy version. Rather, they augment each other. When stories pop up in the legacy media, it has become common to cross-refer to Twitter, to gain additional detail or updates.
As often, if not more so, stories emerge first on social media, and one waits for the legacy media to catch up, whence they may add additional detail not available on social media channels.
When it comes to expertise, though, I do agree that Twitter – in the main – is the place to be. Many experts used by the legacy media have their own social media accounts and will often post more detail than they are allowed space for by the traditional press.
But, where social media comes into its own is in the coverage of such issues as the Ukraine conflict, where the legacy media have long given up offering serious coverage, or have become propaganda outfits for Zelensky, not even attempting to provide balanced reporting.
Although there are multiple websites and YouTube channels covering the conflict, many of which I visit on a routine basis, as regards the current situation (as of late yesterday), a single tweet offers a succinct summary.
It reports large Russian gains in the Vuhledar and Selydove areas, with Russian forces breaking through the Ukrainian lines and raising the flag in Bohoyavlenka, nine kilometers northwest of Vuhledar. Flags have also been sighted near the settlements to the west. Russian forces have actually captured Selydove, raising the flag over the town and also raising a flag in Vyshneve.
Says the writer, “we’re expecting Russian flag raises in the rest of Hirnyk and Kurakhivka any day now”, whence he goes on to say: “To be clear to anyone that just shrugs these off – these are not normal movements. Ukrainian forces are in disarray, and there is now a very good chance for Russia to capitalise upon these efforts and conquer significant areas”.
Cross-checking multiple sources essentially confirms the substance of this tweet and, if anything, understates the position. The Russians have also made significant gains in the Kursk oblast and are poised to clear out the entire Ukrainian incursion.
Readers would not get any sense of this from Ukrainian sources, but the developments constitute important news. Much of the Ukrainian front is close to collapse and Russian forces are poised for a major breakthrough.
Yet, for this news – and it is news, by any measure – you will search the overnight legacy media crop in vain. There is almost complete silence. The best I can find is a bitty report in the Independent (once again).
This has Russian forces making swift and “significant tactical advances” into the eastern Ukrainian city of Selydove, with open source data suggesting that they have advanced in September at their fastest rate since March 2022, despite the Ukrainian incursion into the Kursk oblast.
Yet the paper also gives room to Zelensky’s chief of staff, who says that “a full withdrawal of Russian troops”, and not just peace talks, were essential to ending his country’s war against Moscow. “Don’t be deceived”, he says. “This war will end when the last soldier of the occupying army returns home”.
To find anything close to realism, one has to go to an obscure Ukrainian publication which cites Doug Livermore, vice president of the Special Operations Association of America.
Ukraine, he says, is under pressure due to the advance of Russian troops. The previous “victory plan” did not achieve its goal – securing Western support – and the nation now faces the risk of defeat in the war by 2025 if it does not change its strategy.
For sure, today’s legacy media is packed with reports, and one cannot deny that they are covering ground which embraces a wide range of subjects. But the test of adequacy embraces not just that which they report. What is left out is just as significant.
Whether Elon Musk is setting the right test is debatable, but there can be no doubt that the legacy industry is ceding too much ground for its own good. Ukraine is by no means the only important omission,
In effect, it is voluntarily writing its own redundancy ticket and “citizen journalists” may end up being the only survivors.
