The imMEDIAcy

BREAKING: Every time a nationally broadcasted disaster occurs, we are reminded of the shortcomings of mass media, particularly the need to get the facts first… even if they’re not correct. But we need answers. We crave crave imMEDIAcy.

April was full of a lot of shocking headlines, and the Boston Marathon bombings certainly caught the attention of the nation. As a member of the Massachusetts media, I was on especially high alert during the event, and as someone living not too far from the happenings, I was pretty shaken up. Still, in the aftermath of all of this, I can’t help but try to shed some light on the issue — not the act, but the response.

It’s All CNN’s Fault… Right? After the TV news station’s premature report that officials had a suspect in custody, CNN was blasted for their incorrect reporting. This type of thing happens every time. It’s just a question of who will blow it first. But here, we can’t honestly point the finger at CNN.

The (not always) all-knowing wire service that is the Associated Press (AP) was first to tweet the false news. CNN just picked it up first. After them, a domino-effect of reporting — the New York Times (and ALLLL the media outlets they own, including the Boston Globe) and others including the one I work for, as the report trickled down from the source. In these modern times, and especially these times of tragedy and FBI searching, the audience is waiting. And newsrooms have to put out something. It’s that immediate craving for an answer that drives us to hasty decisions and CNN to a bad rap. Thanks, AP.

Sources? It’s a Secret. In that same vein, my mind was puzzled by a local TV station. The Wednesday following the event, newscasters in the area were still on 24-hour watch, showing a pretty boring shot of the Boston courthouse, rambling about potential leads, photos, etc. The area held their breath. And during that time, after the CNN misstep, one newscaster raised the question — “And you’re probably wondering. You hear us say all the time ‘our sources… our sources,’ but who are these sources we’re mentioning?” If only she had answered the question.

The newscaster and her sidekick stumbled around the answer, saying they didn’t want to give up too much about their secret methods. Anonymity never made any journalist look good, per se, but these anchors were clearly not prepared for the can of worms they had just accidentally opened. I’m sure “their sources” were on the right side of the misreported suspects, too.

The most listened to scanners on Friday, after the bombings. Note Wisconsin.

Police Scanners During a crazy, frightening, unexpected event like the Boston Marathon bombing, responses can be impulsive. During the Watertown manhunt on Friday, tens of thousands turned to local police scanners, as the independent journo in all local citizens came out. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with this practice, police scanners (harboring sometimes unverified information) plus Twitter, can make for some spotty, quickly spread information. (The general theme here.)

Scanners were eventually shut off to online listeners… and good thing. Just take a look at that screen grab via someone I follow on Twitter. Watertown, Wisconsin. Oh, the imMEDIAcy.

It’s all about who you know

Stats of geographical source of LinkedIn members.

As graduation is getting closer, and I am forced to consider a “real” life after college, there’s one word that I can’t shake out of my mind: job. While “loan,” and “adult” are also high contenders, I’m finding myself increasingly thinking about what the hell I’m going to be doing for a living.

In the process of stressing out about all of this, I’ve started using LinkedIn, a website that is best described as Monster smashed together with Facebook. Sure it offers some really useful tools like hosting a spot to showcase your abilities and your resume. You can also become a part of groups that are relevant to your field and seek out potential jobs. Moreover, LinkedIn shows just how much we are defined by those we know, especially in terms of today’s job market.

One of the major parts of LinkedIn is connection with others. Past employers, fellow employees, family members, and college friends all add up to make your network. You can see what they’re doing, where they work, and who they know. It’s a very socialized version of job hunting, visually revolving around people instead of skills or job titles.

While I do think it’s healthy to put faces to resumes, it’s a weird environment.

Just like any other social networking site, you’re selling yourself. LinkedIn is your own arena to make yourself look as employable and knowledgeable as possible and to show how many people you know.

What are interesting to me are the differences between LinkedIn and other social networking sites. As with Facebook, users of LinkedIn can post things of interest, have a profile picture, and get updates about their connections.

When I first started using the site, however, I felt strange using the same practices as I would on Facebook. I didn’t want to use my same profile picture. Why? It’s not like my Facebook makes me out to be a crazy college party animal; in fact, I look pretty subdued in my photo, but for some reason, it just didn’t seem professional enough to use as my picture on LinkedIn. What am I supposed to use the posting for? On Facebook, I usually post articles about politics or videos that satirize the whole situation. I might send someone a link to an irrelevant cute cat picture or post my photos from a recent trip. Does any of that seem like a good idea on LinkedIn? No. So what do I do with this feature?

Funny how function of a website – even within the parameters of social networking – determines how we use and perceive it. It was also funny to see how hard all of my peers try to sell themselves. Yes, that’s the point of the game, but that doesn’t make it any cooler to play it.

Join LinkedIn and you'll look just like all of these happy professional people. Yay!