Why This Is NOT A Breaking Story

We all know the various uses of social media and how social media has played such a viable role in today's internet-crazed generation. It goes without saying we are all connected in one way or another and it's remarkable how far we've come with Journalism and the spread of news. Breaking news happens no matter where we are, and with Twitter it gets to us instantly. It has had a profound impact on society in the long run, making it one of the most important efforts in our lifetime.

But we never always had Twitter to rely upon for news. There was a time when all we had was the 6 & 11 o'clock news to tell us the day's breaking stories. Then in the morning, you had the local newspaper. You never had an updating breaking information website. That's what's changed. Nowadays, news channels are introducing 24 hour news programs online and on TV, eventually, I believe, phasing out all printed newspapers. (Is there really a reason to read the printed Toronto Star if you could access it through the web and follow them on Twitter?)

But like most young men of my generation, I remember exactly where I was when two planes crashed into the World Trade Centre (Miss Consoli's fourth grade class). The event was so significant to my young self because of the reaction of the teachers (hysterical oohs and awes) and the other students. I remember it vividly because of the reaction to the news, not the news itself, as I was too young to fully understand its significance. More recently, I remember where I was when I heard of Michael Jackson’s death (on CNN). Not that this event was as significant as the earlier one, but the reaction through Facebook to the breaking news of his death was memorable. This was the first time I realized that the spread of news through social media could play a big role in breaking news.

And, it's crazy with the addition to social media, short timely messages only a click away and the spread of news in just seconds. Thus, unravelling stories across seas, or someone's death in particular spread like wildfire. We saw what happened with Amy Winehouse, Jack Layton, and Steve Jobs and the social media sites were blown up with millions of updates, prayers, thoughts, condolences, reports and follow ups within a matter of seconds upon breaking news. But it wasn't just news sites, it was people like you and me who took to Twitter and Facebook to share a few words or thoughts on the passing of those people. And still to today, tributes continue.

However, there is a good way to get that news across and there is a bad, but attentive way to get that news out there. See, in Journalism, there are ways to write a specific news piece over a social media website. Whether it be Twitter or Facebook, or even here on my blog, it has to be very precise and contain as much information as possible, but in the fewest, detailed words as possible. That will spread. Here's an example, of what I hope I won't have to see for a decade or more:

"BREAKING - Lindsay Lohan Found Dead"

would be just as good as

"Lindsay Lohan found on floor of hotel room, unconscious, rushed to hospital - details coming soon."

The only problem with that is the first headline would grab more attention than the second. The second headline was written as if more details were coming soon, and the update of Lohan's condition is unknown - the correct information as to what's happening, and we may find out later it's not such a big problem (she's okay). That second one probably won't spread as hugely as the first headline because the first sticks to the straight facts; it gets to the point quicker and with the 'fewer words possible' rule. Thus demonstrating the first will sufficiently spread more quicker and across more screens as their are updates flowing across your news feed than the more wordy, possibly correct story of the two. But then the information won't be completely true because the more correct one is the second headline. People like to go and assume the possible worst, and I don't know why that is.

But the reason for going with the first headline rather than the second? The human brain can only read so much information before it makes a consensus of its own. Whether or not the reader would want to show that information to his or her followers, or as Facebook has introduced a couple weeks ago, 'Subscribers', he or she is only looking at the things they need to see to be able to get a clear and concise understanding of the topic being read. It's short, contains few, but very detailed words for the brain to realize the understanding of the message. Did I already say that? It seems like an overlapping circle. In other words, it's all on the matter of which you read first, and which you believe first. Sources, as mentioned in my last post, are a big part of that.

The end.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for reading that.

The date is October 15, 2011. Occupy Wall Street has moved to Toronto. Halloween or "Jesus Ween" is a few weeks away. The end of the world could be this Friday. For all other news, That Media Hut has everything. Everything. In fact I got so twisted the other night that I accidentally posted a link I was supposed to post on 'That Media Hut' on to MY personal account. I cannot keep track of my own Twitter accounts.

Anyways,

I also wanted to share a piece I've been working on entitled "Addicted to Freeze Pops", but that will have to wait until next time, or I may just post it on Facebook.

For anything else, talk to me in person. Toronto, I'll see you in a week.

Good bye for now. I have lots to work on for class that I have yet to start, and this post is just the dressing to the salad. I'll return with more when I feel like it.

-Drew