Web 2.0, an uncensored media to bring people together and shrink the planet?

I am surprised to see how almost every media broadcasts the same information, with almost no difference. When you watch BBC and go to CNN, it is the same information. Now, you can listen to the radio, still the same information. Newspapers? Again the same information.

It seems to me that information is an industry which works the same way as a distribution industry. You have the information manufacturer: the event itself, then the wholesalers, the press agencies like AFP who distributes the information to all medias and then the retailers (TV newspaper, radio), which of course will all deliver the same information.

Information is an industry which works well when every link of the communication chain is not broken. But sometimes, one link is broken, and the information does not go to the end user. For example, it could be journalists who are unable to cover a specific event or it could be the TV which is unable to broadcast a censored information.

What I am describing here is the old way of broadcasting information. It looks like social websites, in particular Twitter have very recently changed everything in this domain. But, let’s first examine how Twitter works: Twitter is a micro-blogging service that allows users to post messages of up to 140 characters. A user can decide to follow another user’s messages, he then becomes a “follower” and receives “tweets” from this user. The message is a text message, which may contain hyperlinks to other websites. Besides regular users, most of the news companies already have a profile on Twitter. These companies “tweet” news which generally include a link to their own website for more detailed information. Political and opinion leaders are also present on Twitter, and update their supporters about what they are doing. To help users find specific subjects in Twitter, a tweet can also contain “hashtags”, like for example “#technology”, that enable users to perform a search on this tag.

One of the most recent popular hashtag found in Twitter has been “#CNNFail”. This tag was to criticize the fact that CNN did not properly cover the recent Iran elections. Although CNN is specifically named, this topic is more generally about old media unable to cover the event, while new social media sites like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook were able to provide uncensored news directly from the web users, who lived the event. Indeed, thanks to web 2.0, anyone who owns a digital camera and an internet access can now be a news reporter. And this does work particularly well with Twitter, as a user can easily inform his network through short “tweets”. Also, Twitter users are able to inform their network about future gatherings or events, and share their thoughts and their feelings to the web community.

But what really struck me is that Twitter gave a sort of unprecedented proximity to the Iran election event. Watching information on TV is not the same as reading posts of someone who is connected to you through friends of friends. When watching news on TV, images do not seem real, they are like movie, potentially tricked by professionals, while news on social websites are posted by real people who just report what they see.

With this event, web 2.0 has definitely become a new media, like newspaper, TV or radio. Ten years ago, traditional media discovered the possibility of instantaneously broadcasting news over the web. I remember having followed the 9/11 tragedy on the web, and it is precisely at this time that everybody understood how quick and fast the web was. When the 9/11 attack occurred, I was working in my office and I was unable to watch the news on the TV. The web offered me the possibility to follow live news on my computer for the first time. Now, Web 2.0 and social networking sites enable the ones who live a particular event to directly broadcast the news to the world. If Web 2.0 had existed in September 2001, not only I would have been able to get the news in real time, but also I could have received the thoughts and the feelings of thousands of people involved in the tragedy. 9/11 was a horrible shock for everybody, but if Web 2.0 had existed, it would have been an even more gigantic trauma to the entire world, since people involved in the tragedy would have appeared so close through the social networks. And we need to get used to this new proximity which web 2.0 is bringing to us.

But web 2.0 is not going to replace other medias, like TV did not replace radio, and radio did not replace newspapers. Web 2.0 is a complementary communication tool which allows every internet user to broadcast online information. This information is however not always verified, while old media companies are able to provide trusted information to the public. I believe “#CNNFail” hashtag was not justified as CNN finally properly covered the information, but at a slower pace than social networking sites.

To conclude, Web 2.0 provides every internet user with the ultimate communication tool to broadcast information to the world. It helps the ones who live tragic events to update remote people about their own situation. Web 2.0 makes the world shrink a little bit more and make people closer than ever. With Twitter, it looks like someone in Iran is after all, not so far from the US. Can we hope the new proximity found with web 2.0 will bring people together?