The Latest on the New Journalism

Coverage of the short-lived but very dramatic Iranian revolution points up the pluses and minuses of what is increasingly referred to as “the new journalism.” Coverage of breaking news on the spot by amateurs using phone cameras and Twittering on the Internet permits immediacy and verisimilitude by portraying events as they happen. Because it is not curated, observers have no way to assess the truthfulness of what they see.

Major news venues on the Web transmitted unverified citizens’ videos from Tehran. Traditional journalists used and commented on them, noting they could not evaluate their sources. They had no choice, as most professional journalists on the scene were barred or removed. Eyewitnesses filled the vacuum in the 24/7 maw of cable television. “Journalism Rules are Bent,” The New York Times admitted. The networks could not vouch for the credibility of the “news” they transmitted, try though they did. Of 5,200 submissions, CNN used 180 of them, applying its filtering and verification techniques to the avalanche of amateur material it received. A United Kingdom journalist from The Guardian, on the other hand, was quoted as saying he wouldn’t touch Twitter — “it’s all garbage.”

The fact is that some of this reportage may be garbage, and some may be the best reporting possible. Devising a system that excludes the former while perfecting and encouraging the latter is the challenge of the new journalism. That process must move on; it is the future.

Visit www.RonaldGoldfarb.com.