9 Comments

Summary:

Forbes media writer Jeff Bercovici says Journalism 2.0 is somehow to blame for the deaths of 24 people in Afghanistan in the wake of a Quran burning in Florida. But the story he refers to says more about Journalism 1.0 than it does about new media.

3284555653_203ddf91c8_z

Does the journalist who reported on a Quran burning by a right-wing pastor in Florida last month share some of the blame for the deaths of 24 people in Afghanistan in the wake of that event? And is the fact that they died some kind of indictment of the evolution of digital media, or “Journalism 2.0?” That’s the case being made by Forbes media writer Jeff Bercovici in a blog post published on the site Thursday, beneath a tabloid-style headline reading “When Journalism 2.0 Kills.” But the story that the Forbes blogger refers to says more about Journalism 1.0 than it does about new media, and so does Bercovici’s wrong-headed and contradictory response.

The story in question was about notorious evangelical pastor Rev. Terry Jones, who runs a small church in Gainesville, Fla. and set fire to a copy of the Quran on March 21 in what he said was a protest against Muslim acts of terrorism. Jones had earlier made threats to burn a stack of Muslim holy books last year on the anniversary of September 11, and this eventually became a story of national significance after President Obama mentioned it in interviews and asked the pastor not to burn the books because it might lead to violence against Americans in Muslim countries.

In the wake of the March 21 burning, riots broke out in several cities in Afghanistan to protest the event and more than 20 people were killed, including several foreign aid workers. The demonstrations apparently began after President Hamid Karzai referred to the Quran burning in a speech a few days after the event.

So what does any of that have to do with Journalism 2.0? Was it a blog post that mentioned the Quran incident, or a Facebook video that made its way to President Karzai? No. And yet, Bercovici maintains that this is somehow an indictment of the “shift away from journalism schools and newsroom hierarchies, toward empowered citizen bloggers and crowdsourced reporting” that is promoted by “new-media utopians like Jay Rosen and Jeff Jarvis.” In a message posted to Twitter promoting the column, the Forbes writer said “a college kid’s reporting caused 24 deaths in Afghanistan. Here’s how.”

According to Bercovici, most of the mainstream media had decided not to report on Rev. Jones’s burning of the Quran, because of concern over the potential effect on American-Muslim relations, and because the pastor was clearly just a crank looking for attention. But the journalist who did the only story that made its way to Afghanistan (Steve Myers at the Poynter Institute has a play-by-play of the reporting on the event) was “a 21-year-old stringer working on his own, the sort of freelance pieceworker media companies have been leaning on to make up for the downsizing of their professional workforces,” according to Bercovici.

The problem with this argument, as Steve Myers points out in a comment on it, is that the story was picked up by Agence France-Presse, a foreign wire service with a long history, and a traditional media entity if there ever was one. And according to Myers, it was the wire service that asked the journalist in question to report on the burning, presumably because of the previous publicity about it — they weren’t suckered by some freelancing piece-worker. Not only that, but it was picked up by both Google News and Yahoo News. Bercovici maintained in a message to me that this was what gave the story enough credibility to cause the riots that he blames the author (and Journalism 2.0) for.

So the story is somehow simultaneously an indictment of new media and freelancers who do piece-work, or crowdsourcing, according to the Forbes writer — and yet it was a 175-year-old wire service’s idea to do the story, and it was picked up by two major online news outlets. Why isn’t the AFP to blame for those deaths in Afghanistan? Bercovici also tries to argue that this was somehow a result of “a one-man brand told to attract attention any way he can,” but the writer’s name wasn’t even on the story, which was reportedly (according to Myers) heavily edited.

The reality is that neither the reporter nor the wire service are guilty of anything but reporting the news. Bercovici seems to believe that we would all be better off if the traditional media were able to simply make events disappear by not reporting on them, and if stringers for wire services didn’t muck things up by writing about them anyway. But would that really make things any better? Would it have spared the lives of those workers in Afghanistan? Perhaps. But radical believers of any type hardly need excuses to riot or cause bloodshed. And blaming a 21-year-old journalist for those deaths is a cheap way of taking shots at some perceived flaw in Journalism 2.0.

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr users Rogers Cadenhead and Yan Arief

  1. Journalism 1.0 is the reason I was completely surprised by 911, not knowing that millions of Muslims hated America with an explosive fervor.

    Share
    1. Good Point – Journalism 1.0 has left us in the dark, or misinformed, on many/most subjects.

      Share
  2. We live in a hypermediated world so the reality is that sooner or later someone, somewhere, would have tweeted or written about it on their Facebook page and then the echosphere would have done the rest anyway. And while it may sound good to tout the virtues of Journalism 1.0, as a former journalist I’d have to say that piety is overinflated.

    Share
    1. Thanks for the comment, Harriet. Completely agree.

      Share
  3. I made the point in the comments section on Bercovici’s piece that he has now to have accepted all of the comments that prove his piece groundless and yYet the piece, and its very inflammatory headline, still stands, drawing traffic.

    Most people won’t see the clarifications in the comments — he owes it to the reading public to either kill the piece of make sure there’s an unequivocal clarification that appears at the beginning so that everyone who comes to the entry will be warned that it’s full of holes.

    Share
  4. I’m reminded of when people claim that films and games are responsible for teenage violence. The real responsibility lies in the families to educate their children to understand how to process this information.

    But there will always be people who attempt to stem art, or in this case stem the reporting of news. It’s ill-founded at best and completely impractical at worst.

    Isn’t it the goal of journalism to be honest, objective reporters of the news, indentured to the general public? So how is a flood of citizens attempting to bring raw data to the forefront a disservice to the citizens?

    Share
  5. Which is truly intriguing but I didn’t see any sources quoted, is there anything else you believe I ought to search for about it?

    Share
  6. Tim Sullivan Sunday, April 10, 2011

    Ultimately, the only people responsible for the rioting and the killings in Afghanistan following the Quran-burning report are the rioters and the killers.

    Share
  7. journalism…a job with many faces. You can’t have your own identity . You must be like the one you talk to… NO?

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post