reality tv + vigilantism = a new form of journalism?
im being glib, but there are some serious ethical journalism questions that deserve to be brought up. First of all, does every step of the investigation need to be broadcast? Is this reality tv (in internet form) or actual journalism? Can rampant vigilantism on the internet be stopped? Can real journalism prevail in the face of the instant-gratification ppl can get on reddit? Do people want real journalism?
The redditors are basically using the scorched-earth method of journalism, with no regard to who they accuse. Theyre causing considerably more harm than help, which is typical of vigilantism.
An interesting question is this: why is having reporters in vietnam a good thing while redditors following every move of the bombing investigation a bad thing (considered so by some of us at least)?
(please dont answer that with a smug, poorly thought-out answer. sometimes its better to think things through and not just go straight to whipping out the epeen)
> The redditors are basically using the scorched-earth method of journalism, with no regard to who they accuse. Theyre causing considerably more harm than help, which is typical of vigilantism.
What? The difference is that redditors don't claim to be journalists, so why would anyone put any weight in their accusations? No one was lynched by redditors (or in danger of being lynched), so let's not call this vigilantism.
> No one was lynched by redditors (or in danger of being lynched)
Anyone who thinks that Salah Barhoun's life wasn't in danger for a few hours there just hasn't thought things through. This country is littered with small people with guns who would love to assassinate the newest boogeyman.
This is absolutely true. But he was only put in danger once the Fox News affiliate broadcast the image (purportedly from the FBI) of Salah and his friend.
Fox (and, indeed, at least one other Rupert Murdock property: the New York Post) didn't help, but if I were in Salah's place I'd be most concerned about the ar15.com nutjobs who were trolling him:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5573281
In any case, no number of intermediaries would absolve "the subreddit" of responsibility if something went tragically wrong as result of their actions. Mob psychology and the diffusion of responsibility certainly makes people feel like it would.
Nobody was killed, but that doesn't mean nobody was harmed.
Sunil Tripathi's name will forever be linked to the Boston Marathon bombing for absolutely no good reason whatsoever, causing irreparable damage to his memory and untold grief to those who knew him on top of the already crushing grief of his being missing (and perhaps, it now seems, dead).
im being glib, but there are some serious ethical journalism questions that deserve to be brought up. First of all, does every step of the investigation need to be broadcast? Is this reality tv (in internet form) or actual journalism? Can rampant vigilantism on the internet be stopped? Can real journalism prevail in the face of the instant-gratification ppl can get on reddit? Do people want real journalism?
The redditors are basically using the scorched-earth method of journalism, with no regard to who they accuse. Theyre causing considerably more harm than help, which is typical of vigilantism.
An interesting question is this: why is having reporters in vietnam a good thing while redditors following every move of the bombing investigation a bad thing (considered so by some of us at least)? (please dont answer that with a smug, poorly thought-out answer. sometimes its better to think things through and not just go straight to whipping out the epeen)