Media / Media Bias

Cell phones change the media

There is no doubt that technology; Internet news sites and blogs, have forever changed the way we get our news. Dan Rather’s "evidence" that George W. Bush had evaded his National Guard service was quickly debunked on the Internet. As soon as Rather aired the document that provided "proof" that Bush had not completed his service, bloggers pointed out, with perfectly constructed arguments, that the document in question could not have been produced by a 1970s era typewriter. The time of the mainstream media being the final word on what is fact and what is not had ended. Closely after the documents were exposed as frauds, the career of "the Dan" on the nightly news came to an end. There is no doubt that this incident and the work of bloggers will be regarded as a watermark in the history of journalism.

In much the same way, photojournalism made a similar transition when London’s transit system came under attack on what is now known as 7/7. Many London commuters that were close to where the attacks took place had cell phones with picture and video capabilities.

Cell phones were first used to capture videos of world shattering events during last December’s tsunamis. But many of the people who were on the coasts when the big wave hit and who had the technological capability to capture it on film were in tourist areas and had video cameras. While video cameras were in short supply in the London underground, many passengers had did have cell phones with video capabilities. News organizations were instructing their reporters to ask those at the scene during interviews if they had taken any pictures or videos.

Criticism has been raised at these amateur photojournalists. There were reports of people tripping over each other in order to try and get the best pictures. It can also be argued that those who were uninjured and taking pictures could have spent their time more productively by assisting the injured and assisting others in leaving the underground.

There was also criticism that some people took gruesome footage that would not have been taken by professionals and if it had, would never have aired. These types of pictures are seen as an invasion of the privacy of the dead, dying and seriously injured that were the objects of the footage.

Despite the drawbacks, the positive factors of this relatively new technology outweigh the negative. We are able to see the aftermath of important events like the London terrorist attacks that we wouldn’t otherwise be able to view because professional film crews would be denied access to the venue or only given access long after the event. Pictures and films that would never make it on to the mainstream media are able to give viewers a truer picture of the horror of events such as the London bombings.

In much the same way as the Internet has, cell phone technology has forever changed the media coverage of important events.

Arthur Weinreb is an author, columnist and Associate Editor of Canada Free Press. His work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Men's News Daily, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck and The Rant. Arthur can be reached at: aweinreb@rogers.com

Other articles by Arthur Weinreb