Lost in #Haiti

How Haiti's disaster showed Twitter's limits as a news medium.

BY JOSHUA E. KEATING | JANUARY 22, 2010

If Iran's post-election uprising last summer was the world's first "Twitter revolution," the massive Jan. 12 earthquake in Haiti was the first "Twitter disaster." In a sign of how much the media landscape has changed since the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 or Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Twitter users around the world quickly turned to the massively popular microblogging site to read the latest news, express their sympathy, and learn how to help. Haiti quickly became the site's top "trending topic," edging out such favorites as #TeamConan and #nowTHATSghetto.

In an effort to catch the wave, established media sources like the News York Times and CNN used Twitter's new list feature to set up aggregator feeds featuring the latest updates from the ground in Haiti. The tweeting fever did not let up in the days that followed. On Wednesday Jan. 20, more than a week after the original quake, a rush of Twitter activity following news of new aftershocks in Port-au-Prince actually shut down the site.

It's clear that Twitter became a portal for people looking to connect about the tragedy -- just click the #Haiti hashtag and then refresh after three seconds if you don't believe me. But did Twitter actually replace other, more old-school media as a means for staying informed about events on the ground?

Unsurprisingly, instead of offering news, the vast majority of Haiti-related tweets seem to consist of either expressions of personal sympathy for the victims of the quake or links to news articles from other sites. Foreign reporters, including CNN's Anderson Cooper and Sanjay Gupta, tweeted their impressions, but these were more of a supplement to their coverage than actual works of reporting. Foundations like Doctors Without Borders and CARE provided Twitter updates on their efforts, but these were of little interest to those not directly involved in the relief effort -- who presumably had more reliable sources of information anyway.

Then there was the dark side. False rumors quickly began to spread on Twitter about relief initiatives that didn't exist. A Twitter message stating that UPS was shipping free to Haiti and another that U.S. airlines were flying doctors to the country for free -- when in fact, the country was completely closed to commercial flights in the days following the earthquake -- led those companies to be deluged with phone calls and requests they couldn't answer.

Twitter can occasionally be an effective means of organization -- Tweets played a role in the online campaign to pressure the U.S. Air Force into opening the Port-au-Prince airport to aid flights -- but they can just as often lead well-meaning readers astray, particularly when there's celebrity involved. Haitian-born musician Wyclef Jean quickly became one of the most popular Haiti-tweeters as he traveled to his home country to help with the relief effort and urged readers to donate to his Yele Foundation. (#Yele was a top trending topic in the immediate aftermath of the quake.) But concerns were quickly raised over the foundation's financial irregularities and ability to deal with a problem the size of the earthquake. Many in the development community resented that Jean's group was diverting funds away from groups better equipped to respond.

In fact, though it's often said that new technologies like Twitter can empower individuals to communicate directly to a large audience, those who seemed to be benefiting most from it during this crisis were mainstream news outlets, who have the manpower to pick out the decent information from Twitter for more discerning readers; foundations and charities looking to raise money, whether deserving or not; and government agencies publicizing their own efforts.

If anything, the few tweets resembling news -- generated by genuinely engaged tweeters like musician Richard Morse or the New York Times' Damien Cave -- only pointed out the limitations of Twitter as a news medium. A tweet like Cave's "Navy helicopters circling the embassy now. More military on the way. Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti -- different, but all nation building?" is more of a teaser for his articles than an informative statement. Is there value in readers in the United States and Europe knowing that a particular store in downtown Port-au-Prince had been ransacked or a particular building in Jacmel had collapsed rather than waiting for a more comprehensive roundup of these events in the Times or on CNN?

In the past two decades, the news cycle has gone from the daily updates of newspapers to the up-to-the-minute coverage of cable news and the blogosphere to the up-to-the second updates of Twitter. It's possible that we may have reached a point where information is being provided faster than users can process it, and the "news" ceases to inform at all.

 

Joshua E. Keating is an associate editor at Foreign Policy.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

FREETRADER

4:16 AM ET

January 23, 2010

You are surprised?

Twitter is useless as a means of communcation of information. It seems to have a function as a tool for self promotion. It is amazing that anyone would ever assume that twitter could possibly be used to communicate anything of real interest. My posting here is quite short -- but much too long to be a twitter post. Twitter is a gimmick whose time is already passing.

 

COOKIESUNSHINEX

12:06 PM ET

January 23, 2010

At least there is more participation

The fact that you point out that so many tweets about Haiti were pointless babble indicates part arrogance on your part.

What you are saying is that because you didn't find a specific tweet or tweets particularly useful as a professional journalist, that the author(s) were not discerning enough. You are also saying that people are basically idiots and only a few discerning ones have something important to say, and only those that have something important to say should have the authority to say it to the masses.

The reality is that more people actually talked about this problem/disaster and tried to interact, whereas with traditional media, they could only listen. This network effect focused alot of consciousness and brain power on one particular topic, which is important.

I would love to see the numbers on how much money was raised/donated for the Haitian disaster as compared to the Asian Tsunami of 2004 before social networking had hit with such impact.

The fact that more people talk about something or express their views or opinions means that our collective conscious as a whole is more focused on a real issue instead of ignoring the suffering of others and going about their normal comfortable lives because of distractions that traditional media spews out at us (I'm thinking of things like "Keeping up with the Kardashians" and "Elminidate" "The Girls Next Door" and "Jersey Shore" to name a few.)

This instinct to try to make sense of the phenomenon of twitter or blogging or focusing on the fact that twitter has no existing business model, yet it has millions more viewers than Glen Beck has on Fox, sounds like a fear of progression and a lack of imagination.

 

C-TIPS

8:25 AM ET

January 25, 2010

"You are also saying that

"You are also saying that people are basically idiots and only a few discerning ones have something important to say"

When it comes to useful, bona fide information about an event then that's often true, yes. The article is about Twitter's value as a news source; thousands of posts saying "OMG, so sad about Haiti, I'm praying" or whatever is not news, it's just emotional noise at best and veiled solipsism at worst ("Look at me, I care").

Whether Twitter has any use in raising consciousness of an event is open to debate but that's a different argument to whether it has any value as an information source.

 

CFARIVAR

12:14 PM ET

January 25, 2010

Twitter Revolution in Iran?

I'm a little surprised that you guys continue the meme of Twitter Revolution in Iran given that FP's own Evgeny Morozov has thoroughly debunked this idea.

See: http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/20/the_repercussions_of_a_twitter_revolution

Cheers,

-Cyrus Farivar
http://cyrusfarivar.com

 

MIGHTYWIND

12:49 PM ET

January 25, 2010

Lame

Really, this trending topic is all to reminiscent of the drug rehab disaster of '09. Just terrible.

 

TESTING TEST

6:25 PM ET

January 25, 2010

Nearly there!

"Unsurprisingly, instead of offering news, the vast majority of Haiti-related tweets seem to consist of either expressions of personal sympathy for the victims of the quake or links to news articles from other sites. "

This is not merely unsurprising: it's so uninteresting an observation it's hardly worth the pixels that illuminate it. What IS surprising is that the world's credulity for phenomena like Twitter is so great that topics such as these bear writing about.

And as for some misguided commenters: the success of twitter in light of its non-existent business model does not abrogate twitter of the need to prove it has some value. It's not on another plane of existence, it's not exempt from the normal laws of business, because it has 100-quadrillion posts a day. If Pepsi were free, would it not be a phenomenon too? It would be like tapwater. Not just in popularity, but in valuelessness. Twitter is like tapwater. It's nothing interesting. But it's not free either.

The only phenomenon worth writing about is the phenomenon of venture capitalists throwing buckets of money into the sky-pie of internet services as the pyramid scheme that is online advertising collapses beneath it. Did the dot-com bubble not burst just 10 years ago?

Trust me, the moment Twitter takes the step of making users pay for its services (in whatever way), there will instantly be many little Twitters, as uninteresting as corrugated cardboard, or pencils. And hopefully, finally, the sound of that stupid name will fade into oblivion.