If anyone is keeping track, this is BY FAR the fastest blog post I have ever put together – so please keep that in mind as you read.
After returning to my desk from a delicious lunch, which included Davanni’s pizza, it was pointed out to me by @ellejam that I was quoted in a tech story on CNN in a tweet that included a link. To be honest, my first thought was spam – but curiosity got the best of me. So I checked and it was true! Sort of…
In case you didn’t see the story, here is a link and a screen capture:
As you can see by my stellar editing, my tweet was used in a CNN story – sans my name.
To provide the proper evidence, I give you – my tweet:
My feeling of complete surprise and excitement from being on CNN.com (I mean, how cool is that?) is slightly diminished with the absence of my name. I know it’s my tweet, my followers know it’s my tweet, so why couldn’t CNN properly quote me?
So my question is this: What are the journalistic standards for attribution when referencing a quote/update/post from a user on social media? I am sure I am not the first social media user to experience this, so what are the expectations? Should journalists be including user names into stories when they quote a source, even if that source was found on Twitter?
Thoughts?
#1 by Bob Collins on November 17, 2009 - 1:57 pm
It’s really an interesting question and goes well beyond social networking to EXACTLY when is attribution required. If someone in a crowd yells something, for example, do accounts have to identify who it was who shouted it?
Personally, I would probably have linked to the tweet and not bothered with the username.
#2 by Kristin on November 17, 2009 - 2:05 pm
Good point, Bob. There is always a question as to when sources, information, etc. need to be cited. For selfish reasons, I would’ve been happy with a link to the tweet!
Thanks for reading and offering your input.
#3 by James Lockwood on November 17, 2009 - 1:57 pm
You are so right. Attribute to where yo ugot the quote (whether from interview, other story, book, or Twitter). Not that I am jaded, but in world of Jason Blairs, I think it lends credibility to the journalist to have something more than just “a Twitter user.” It also shows some enterprising work on the journalist’s part (as enterprising as watching Twitter posts can be).
#4 by Jason Douglas on November 17, 2009 - 1:58 pm
Tweets need to be cited and credit needs to be given to the creator of a tweet. This will help authenticity (link to the specific tweet in anchor text). This will also force journalists to look into the source further. Very easily, it is possible that the person who writes a tweet (Kristin in this story) could have hidden agendas, may not be the best voice to represent a part of a story, etc.
Lucky for cnn.com, Kristin is a legit contributor to the online community (despite her alliance with the Green Bay Packers)
Once the journalism world does this, it should help Twitter and social media channels become more accepted to the general public. I would expect growth to increase for a long period of time during the adoption phase.
My two cents. Congrats, Kristin!
P.S. how did you find out that your tweet was included in the story?
#5 by Kristin on November 17, 2009 - 2:26 pm
James – Thanks for commenting! Great point re: the perceived legitimacy of Twitter and other social media sites. Linking to the user or the update would show initiative on the part of the reporter to find sources for stories in nontraditional spaces.
Jason –
First thing: Impressive to get a Packer jab in, you’re the first to do that!
I would have never known about my tweet being used in CNN’s story, if it hadn’t been pointed out to me by @ellejam who happened to be a follower, see my tweet from earlier, read the article and remember my tweet – definitely not an easy thing to do!
Which is another interesting piece to this issue – the reporter should have sent me a message along the lines of “Your tweet is being featured in an article on CNN. Here’s the link to share with your followers.” I would’ve gladly promoted his piece, had I been properly identified of course.
#6 by Matt Lechner on November 17, 2009 - 2:34 pm
Congrats Kristin, that is awesome that CNN picked up your tweet. Unfortunately this might be the new reality for journalism. Before Twitter you would have seen CNN interviewing “people on the street” to get their thoughts on the new word. Now they have producers (probably interns) scraping Twitter looking for comments.
Why they didn’t attribute the quote to you could be because they didn’t want to misrepresent you. CNN can’t be certain that it was actually you who posted the tweet. If they wanted to be thorough (and practice the best journalism) they would contact you and ask you if you wrote that. But who has time for that these days? It’s lazy journalism.
The best practice here -in my mind- is to attribute and link to the original tweet. How do we know you’re not a CNN plant just trying to make the story better? Congrats again.
#7 by @ellejam on November 17, 2009 - 2:40 pm
Actually, I wasn’t a follower!
I saw the CNN story and they mentioned your hashtag, so I made my own tweet using that hashtag. Twitter showed me others with that hashtag, and I read yours. It seemed to be the only one and so I clicked your page out of curiosity. You didn’t seem to be aware of what had happened so
I tweeted at you and theeeeen I became a follower of you.
#8 by Kristin on November 17, 2009 - 2:59 pm
Matt – Thanks for the media perspective. I wouldn’t have thought about a CNN-planted tweet, but it is definitely interesting! Regardless, seeing the initial article was exciting and watching the chatter unfold on here and Twitter is even more so! Thanks for reading.
Lauren – Glad I checked with you to get the actual story straight – nonetheless thanks for clarifying. More importantly, thanks for checking the hashtag and sending me a tweet. You definitely didn’t have to, but I really do appreciate it! Oh, and thanks for following
#9 by @ellejam on November 17, 2009 - 3:04 pm
Happy to do it.
#10 by Judy on November 17, 2009 - 3:13 pm
Great post – kudos for getting it up fast – love the blog so far! Judy
#11 by Kasey Skala on November 17, 2009 - 3:48 pm
I can’t remember where I heard this debate, but it was in regards of newspapers using photos found on Twitter and other SM platforms. Mostly, this was in regards to emergencies (i.e. 35 bridge) and it was about a 90/10 split where the person who tweeted the photo would get credit.
My thoughts: you NEED to source this stuff. User your twitter handle, use your name – it doesn’t matter, IMO. But you HAVE to source.
#12 by Kristin on November 17, 2009 - 3:59 pm
Kasey – Good point about the rights to photos. I remember seeing a source crediting whoever tweeted the photo of the plane in the Hudson River, from their iPhone, ALL over the news. Clearly they felt that was necessary to attribute.
#13 by David Erickson on November 17, 2009 - 4:54 pm
What?
Four blog posts and you’re already quoted and dissed by CNN!?!
#14 by billhelm on November 17, 2009 - 6:00 pm
Had a tweet quoted by Jon Gordon on the Future Tense MPR program last week. He did not attribute, simply said “one guy”.
Can’t say that I really care too much.
#15 by Recovering Procrastinator on December 5, 2009 - 12:44 pm
As a former copy editor, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have allowed this through. I would have found who the tweet came from and added your user name. Given enough time, I’d have the reporter track you down through twitter and get your real name and city and have you expand on the thought.
At least in hind sight, that’s what I say. But under deadline pressures and in an industry trying to do more with fewer people everyday, who knows how this went down and what I would have done in the same situation.
#16 by Hipolito Halbrooks on March 10, 2010 - 4:29 am
Just to let u know keep up the great site.