On Aug. 30, the weekly Black Lives Matter protest in Downtown Ithaca turned violent. A car drove through the crowd and a man threw a punch at a protestor — an uncharacteristic event at the largely peaceful protests.
WENY News, a local television station, reported that “a group of protesters surrounded and damaged the vehicle” that was attempting to drive down the street, according to the Ithaca Police Department. The article also stated, “A bystander reportedly saw the incident and went to the driver's aid. Police say it's reported that this bystander was ‘shoved to the ground by some of the protesters causing a minor injury to the bystander.’” WENY did not source any attendees of the protest.
As cases of police brutality against Black individuals have become highly profiled in the media, journalists have begun to reevaluate their reliance on the police as a source.
As media reporters Paul Farhi and Elahe Izadi write in their Washington Post article on the relationship between journalists and the police, “Journalists on deadline say they typically have few choices other than police to get them the information they need when a crime happens. They can’t directly reach arrested civilians to hear their side. Defense attorneys don’t always know the details of their clients’ alleged acts and sometimes don’t want to talk, often on the belief that doing so will invite more attention.”
Fair enough. But are these valid excuses in the age of social media?
Community member Genevieve Rand tweeted a video of the Aug. 30 incident, writing, “The Ithaca Police Department just released a statement saying protesters attacked a car yesterday. That’s a lie — I was hit by the car in question as it barreled through protesters, and we STILL made immense effort to de-escalate and get them talking calmly.”
Contrary to WENY, the Ithaca Voice, a local online news source, reported this event differently, sourcing the video that was circulating on social media, as well as “protestors at the scene.” Even if the reporter covering the protest was not able to speak to protestors in the moment, there is no excuse not to include the public’s perspective in the final report. One of the benefits of social media is accessibility — a quick search on Twitter for terms like “Ithaca” or “protest” would bring this Tweet up to corroborate the police report. There is never a dead end if a journalist knows how to properly search on social media.
This is just one example of how social media impacts journalism today. It can serve as a tool to crowdsource and research further. However, if journalists don’t do their due diligence in reporting, members of the public can just as easily publish content themselves. They don’t need to wait for a journalist to report the story when they experienced it themselves and have the proof right in their pocket.
Journalists need to work with their audience on social media to incorporate these first-hand accounts in their reporting. Unfortunately, this was not the case for WENY, who was called out for a one-sided story.
Perhaps the most humbling takeaway is that the audience is always watching, and social media provides them with the platform to hold journalists accountable.
Comments