Around ten in the morning this past Labor Day, the sky above Boulder, Colorado turned a dusty orange. A fire had sprung up in nearby Fourmile Canyon, and was spreading. Fast. Black smoke billowed up, visible for miles. Since it was a holiday, many Boulder residents were out of town. Likewise, government offices and news outlets were either closed or incredibly short-staffed, causing an understandable but dangerous lapse in communication and emergency response.
At first, the websites of local news outlets like the Boulder Daily Camera, The Denver Post, and Denver’s 9News.com didn’t have any information. As a result, the town saw the smoke and blaze out their windows before they knew exactly what it was, where it was, or how quickly it was spreading. So many people there did what they’d been conditioned to do when they need answers fast; call friends, blast something on Facebook, or click around on Twitter until they make a connection.
As the fire spread throughout the following week, residents turned increasingly to these social media outlets for information, photos and maps. Local newsrooms struggled to keep up with the flow of unconfirmed reports and rumors, and delayed reporting those that they could not verify; some readers weren’t satisfied with their performance. After the smoke cleared, those who covered the fire, both the professional journalists and those trading information on social media sites from home, have asked who better served the community’s needs during this fast-changing emergency, and what they can both learn for next time. While social media cheerleaders see Twitter and other tools as essential for keeping up with the news cycle, more traditional news outlets maintain that they did the right thing. Editors at the Daily Camera and the Post both said that even if they had had more staff on this story, they would not necessarily have dedicated the extra manpower to watching or reacting to Twitter reports.
Probably the most prolific social media user in the first few days of the fire was Sandra Fish, an instructor at the School of Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of Colorado. When she saw smoke, she tuned in to the Boulder County police scanner, which is broadcast online to the public. Fish was used to listening to scanners from her time as a full-time journalist—she wrote for the Daily Camera and the now-defunct Rocky Mountain News, among other papers—and she also teaches her students to use Twitter to take notes during a breaking news story. She instinctively started tweeting what she overheard on the scanner about the fire: information about its location and size, and evacuation instructions from the authorities.
Some tweets had specific information, some were educated guesses based on what she could make out. Some were just quotes without context. Here are three samples of the hundreds she put out that day, one every few minutes:
scanner: hearing explosions. “unless we get some eyes in the sky, we’re really throwing dirt at this thing.” #Boulderfire
Mon Sep 6 17:40:36 2010
scanner: “we’ve definitely got an hour or so before it gets really bad.” sounds like someone near Sunshine? #Boulderfire
6:00 PM Sep 6th
scanner: fire running parallel to Gold Hill and Sunshine Road. “Everybody west of Gold Hill should be evacuated.” #Boulderfire
6:38 PM Sep 6th
Fish also re-tweeted a lot of information from the authorities, who were themselves using Twitter and Facebook to get information out to residents. (The more traditional “Reverse 911” system that autodials home phones with emergency alerts failed, in many instances.)
Meanwhile, more and more people joined in and traded tips: everything from offering a place to stay or a free meal to those who had been evacuated, to passing along information about how people could help—things like ‘please don’t come bring cookies to the firefighters because they are busy’. A lot of people also took advantage of Twitpic to post photos of the blaze from where they stood.
After a few false starts, “#boulderfire” was the tag soon adopted by everyone trading information about the fire online. A whole ecosystem of information developed, quickly and organically. In one especially impressive feat of crowdsourcing, by 1 p.m. that day, graduate student Amanda Pingel had put together a collaborative Google map of the areas affected by the fire, embedded with geo-specific alerts and residents’ photos.
There is no way to know for sure exactly how many people evacuated from their homes as a result of seeing an alert on Twitter or Facebook, as opposed to another mode of communication. But social media certainly had a wide reach. By social media analyst Tery Spataro’s account, the Twitter tag “#boulderfire” was seen by 985,000 people and was used by 688 Twitter users within the first five days of the fire.
Bruce Barcott, a freelance journalist who was following the story as it broke (and who has written for CJR), was one of the readers who grew frustrated and gave up on traditional media as a source of breaking news. “The speed with which the fire was moving, was such that people really needed minute-by-minute updates,” said Barcott. “And I essentially stopped looking at The Denver Post.” He added that this was the first news event he found himself following almost exclusively on Twitter and Facebook.
Fish sees the Fourmile Fire as a case in point for why traditional media in the area need to adjust their attitudes toward social media. She doesn’t think that shrinking newsrooms are an adequate excuse for their lack of speed and thoroughness in covering a story like this one, either.
“It’s partly a matter of being understaffed, but it’s also that the traditional [media] culture sees social media as something separate,” Fish said when she spoke to CJR after the fire had been contained, about a week after it began. “There are a lot of people who really get it. But then there are a lot of people who think, ‘This is just more work for me.’”
A great round-up of the issues, Lauren. Thanks!
A few comments:
First and foremost, who says that there must be a dichotomy here? — traditional journalism dedicated to accuracy and context versus speedy crowd-sourcing through social media that is (allegedly) inaccurate by its very nature? This seems like a grossly simplistic view that denies history. Journalism has long existed on a very broad continuum, with late-breaking, incomplete, and possibly inaccurate reports on one end, and in-depth, multi-year, efforts resulting in things like books and documentary films on the other end.
I also believe reporters and editors at the Post and the Camera underestimate their readers by thinking that they cannot tell the difference between a fully reported, excellently contextualized story and a 140-character Tweet about the possibility that flames are racing down a canyon toward some homes. Do they really mean to suggest that it would be best if people didn't get that potentially inaccurate information? Or that reporters and editors shouldn't use their expertise in vetting information to help make the stream of Twitter alerts as accurate as it can be?
I wonder how they would answer this question: If you were living in one of those homes, which of these would you prefer?: To wait to read the Denver Post story until after you were in the hospital with severe burns, or to hear that your life was in danger in time to evacuate?
If a lack of accuracy and context is a problem in the social media sphere, wouldn't that argue even more for tasking a skilled reporter and/or editor to participate in the fast-moving conversation? That conversation is going to happen whether the newspaper likes it or not. The Fourmile Canyon Fire, and many other recent emergencies, absolutely prove that. So would it not be better to bring those journalistic skills and values to bear on the conversation?
Anecdotally, I saw mostly restraint and considered judgment in the Tweets about the fire. There were exceptions, but others seemed to step in to correct the record or to remind people that what was happening wasn't even the first draft of history — it was simply the raw material for that draft. To suggest that a news organization should have no role in helping to organize and disseminate that raw material seems like a dereliction of duty.
Fish's skill and judgment as a journalist serves as a model for how a journalist could help the community during an emergency like the fire. She set an excellent example for others. And she used journalistic values and ethics to guide her decisions about what information to Tweet and very precisely how to word it. That is most definitely something the Camera, the Post and other newspapers could do during future emergencies, if only they were willing finally to break out of their "we report, you decide" mentality.
I'd also like to comment on the silly idea that contextualization and social media are somehow incompatible during an emergency. I took my role as a journalist very seriously during the Fourmile fire. And that meant helping to contextualize the event — but not waiting several days to do it. I'm a science and environmental journalist, so I tried to bring that knowledge and experience to bear on the situation. I quickly found satellite imagery showing evidence of the fire and posted what I considered to be the best of it to my blog. Then I used social media to alert the community to it.
This is about as broad a contextualization as one could imagine for this subject — views from space showing how large the fire was and how far its influence extended. (One of the images I posted showed the smoke plume reaching all the way to Illinois.)
And this leads me to a factual correction that's directly related to this argument: When I posted the satellite photos, Twitter and other social media helped raise my blog's page views from a typical daily av
#1 Posted by Tom Yulsman, CJR on Thu 30 Sep 2010 at 05:55 PM
Excellent article. A similar discussion emerged after the Schultz Fire near Flagstaff. I agree completely with Tom's opening comment on the continuum of journalism, and would add that social media is emerging as a vital part of that continuum.
His third paragraph is the crux. Vital information that can potentially save lives must go out as soon as possible - I call it preventive journalism, and try to practice it in the environmental arena all the time: Report on something BEFORE the harm is done.
I publish a news blog in Summit County http://www.summitvoice.org and I used the #BoulderFire Twitter stream (and info from emergency services websites) to compile a few near real-time posts, just because wildfires is one of the topics I follow closely.
Even though I'm not in Boulder, I had few people who live in that area, or who were visiting, thank me for providing timely information, with similar comments to those Lauren outlined: The traditional media was not getting information out there fast enough. Similar to Tom, I used satellite images and the most up-to-date maps to illustrate. The smoke-plume images were impressive!
That brings up another issue. Since the traditional media hasn't shifted mental gears away from a 24-hour news cycle, there's still the danger that, once a story is written, it's left as-is for the duration of the cycle, by which time the information is woefully out-of-date.
News, especially something like a wildfire, happens in real-time, not in12 or 24-hour increments.
One way a media outlet can handle the question of accuracy in social media is with transparency and up-front disclosure about the source. As Tom says, readers can, and do, tell the difference between a reported story and those real-time bursts of information. Just let people know where the info is coming from.
Speed isn't always the issue. Even a story that's based on long-term research can be wrong. Remember Iraq's WMDs?
One other factor in social media is the trust factor. If you're seeing messages about a wildfire being tweeted by neighbors and people you know live in the affected area, you might be more inclined to believe that source than the information from a reporter sitting in an office, looking at a map.
Lack of accuracy and context is not only a problem in social media. In under-staffed newsrooms, with high turnover and less and less institutional knowledge, it's becoming rare to find good context and background.
#2 Posted by Bob Berwyn, CJR on Thu 30 Sep 2010 at 07:00 PM
Tom and Bob, thank you so much for your very thoughtful comments - they really move the conversation along. I hope that other readers weigh in, too. It's a complex topic. And Tom, I have corrected the info about your blog traffic, above - thanks for that, too.
#3 Posted by Lauren Kirchner, CJR on Fri 1 Oct 2010 at 10:28 AM
But the tradiitional media were LESS accurate. On Twitter, if someone was inaccurate it was IMMEDIATELY corrected. The media kept reporting evacuations that were only road closures. It was really hard to to get information when you were waiting to learn if you should leave--when you knew that roads were closing and you might not be able to get back up, you wanted to wait till the last minute, esp if you were trying to help neighbors pack, or help get pets out for neighbors who were out of town. The TV outlets just kept playing the same clips over and over, so they were useless, and the newspapers were not updating fast enough. The media reported that Olde Stage road was evac'd long before any of the neighborhoods closes to the fire were. This made zero sense and was very confusing to the neighbors. They reported that a County Road into Lefthand Canyon was an evacuation line, and no one in the Canyon knew what road that was, because it's a hiking trail on our side of the Canyon. On Twitter you could *ask a question,* and someone would hunt it down for you.
#4 Posted by Claudia Putnam, CJR on Fri 1 Oct 2010 at 12:41 PM
I need to eat a little crow — and make an important correction: In my comments above, I lumped reporters at the Camera and Post together with editors. But this was bad reporting on my part! And shame on me for that. The reason: Lauren didn't interview reporters. She only spoke to editors, so my criticism should have been leveled at them alone.
I also want to say publicly that I have the greatest respect in the world for reporters toiling at papers like the Daily Camera, which really is horribly short-staffed. Reporters like Laura Snider there do an amazing job, especially considering the paucity of their resources these days.
That said, I do very strongly believe that if newspapers are going to survive, they have to realize that their readers are actually figuring out how to find the information they need and want, especially in emergency situations where speed is of the essence. Newspapers must figure out how to bring some extra value and judgment to this information flow. Otherwise they will continue to bleed.
#5 Posted by Tom Yulsman, CJR on Fri 1 Oct 2010 at 06:59 PM
The hope for the Community During Crisis analysis/usage of social media during [http://bit.ly/bAicpf ] the fire was intended to ignite a discussion on public safety during a crisis. Social media tools are a new and innovative way to help save lives and property and share information more quickly than traditional channels. The Boulder community’s behavior, granted a very technology savvy and small group, demonstrated how quickly they self-organized by identifying the more relevant and reliable sources of information. At one point during the fire, there was a source that was providing erroneous information. The community did it’s best to disclose that the information was false and correct with the timely, correct info.
We have spoken to many people who were affected by the fire; generally, the shared sentiment is a lack of confidence in the government’s ability to alert and report during crisis, and for journalists to provide timely information. Using social media in its many different forms is a practical way for people to self-organize, share information and spread it quickly. There is the possibility that the information could fragment as well as create vulnerability, hysteria or misinformation.
Our hope is that the conversations during and post the Fourmile fire will spur government to create crisis/emergency plans that involve usage of social media and have the leadership in place that can mobilize the community.
- Tery Spataro and Amy Lieberman Orange Insights http://www.orangeinsights.com
#6 Posted by Tery Spataro and Amy Lieberman, CJR on Fri 1 Oct 2010 at 09:08 PM
A few months back, my husband and I landed in Bangkok during the worst rioting the city had seen in decades. We're both journalists, but we were not there to cover that story. We had just wrapped up work on a separate (also explosive) project in Laos, and we had to pass through Bangkok to retrieve bags we'd stashed at our usual hotel. That hotel sits a few blocks from what had been the main protest stage. When we checked in, the desk man asked, "Why are you here?" Only one other guest had stayed.
Within hours, the military sent in APCs and protesters scattered, igniting fires across Bangkok. Our street remained blocked by the military. We heard gunfire and bomb explosions nearby, and we saw the smoke from our window. We could not decide whether it was safer to stay or flee. We followed Twitter religiously, as well as the Reuters AlertNet with immediate updates. We did not follow the local papers. Though generally decent news sources, they could not keep up with the fast-paced technology critical in such a volatile situation. The best local reporters were tweeting—and that's where we found them. As did just about anyone else in Bangkok who had access to the Internet.
My husband and I finally escaped our hotel amid a rash of fires and great uncertainty. Our taxi driver had to sweet-talk his way past numerous military blockades. We made it safely to an airport hotel across town.
Social media undoubtedly saved lives last May—perhaps even my own. As a journalist, I am a big fan of traditional media in its most solid forms. As a citizen whose life is at risk, I would much prefer occasional erroneous tweets to the inevitable delay in waiting for information from (most of) today's newspapers.
My question: why can't we have a happy marriage between old and new? Local newsrooms know the area best, and local reporters are best equipped to cover an emergency. Local papers could establish "live wires" such as Reuters did, and local reporters could tweet with the same professionalism they would give their stories. Journalism standards need not change—but we must, along with the technology.
#7 Posted by Karen Coates, CJR on Mon 4 Oct 2010 at 09:06 PM
To respond to your last paragraph, there is a slow melding in progress, but there's also some institutional resistance from the traditional media, especially some of the mainstream corporate media. Based on my experience from both sides of the fence, the resistance stems from a couple of things: Inherent corporate conservatism and a misplaced sense of "ownership" of the news. I don't want to generalize too much, because some mainstream media clearly get it, and are incorporating social media tools. But others just feel like they don't want to give up control. Fair enough, but what bothers me is when they hide behind the claims that the news needs to be filtered through their lens for accuracy and objectivity. If they just want to say, "We own the news in this town, and we're not about to give that up," I'd have more respect for their position.
#8 Posted by Bob Berwyn, CJR on Tue 5 Oct 2010 at 06:50 PM
I am the PIO (spokesperson) for the Westminster Police Department and we monitor events like the Boulder fire to learn from them and develop emergency response protocols and plans. Fortunately, catastrophic events like these are few and far between, unfortunately the lessons learned can be great. From the perspective of someone charged with releasing that critical and important information in the time of emergency both sources are necessary. Finding the balance is what has yet to be found. We appreciate the relationship we have with the existing formal media sources and look to them to be accurate in the information they provide to the general public, but also realize that the changing face of “media” and free-form journalists can be a positive addition to emergency situations or create catastrophic consequences. Westminster police utilize many of the current social media sources: Twitter, Facebook, our own website. Having these tools is becoming essential for us to directly and quickly communicate with our community and the media. When an emergency like this fire breaks out we are inundated with email, phone calls, even people congregating at the location of the emergency or our lobby and we don’t have the ability or manpower to individually respond to any of them. We must distribute factual information in a quick format that can be disseminated to large groups. With the growing popularity of social media and ability to directly connect with all of our media groups and residents we are beginning to rely on this as a form of emergency communication. (NIMS) National Incident Management Systems, the federal government’s protocols, have had to change as they contradict and conflict with the sharing of information through social media. FEMA has recognized the role and significance social media plays as these emergencies unfold. What we have yet to discover is the balance between the new and old. What role do they play and should they play. When and where are each applicable, and how do we use all of our means to best inform the public, safely and effectively without causing sheer panic and chaos. Accurate information that is promptly shared is essential to saving lives. As was commented in the article, scanner traffic is often inaccurate and this is a direct example of why we need to define the role each format plays. The struggle to define each role comes full circle to the emergency service agencies handling the crisis. We are the source of that factual and accurate information that needs to be broadcast; it is a matter of us being prepared, equipped and trained to do it when that unlikely event comes to our community.
#9 Posted by Investigator Materasso, CJR on Fri 15 Oct 2010 at 07:27 PM