Yesterday morning the online world was abuzz with a breaking news story about an air crash in Zimbabwe. We were reliably informed, by Sky News and BBC among others, that there had been an ‘accident’ involving a flight from London that had crashed while trying to land at Harare International Airport. Every major news channel carried coverage of this story with some suggesting it was a drill while others confirming that an accident had taken place, quoting an official statement from the head of Zimbabwe’s civil aviation authority. We had news of casualties (some) and fatalities (none), although in his statement he told the world that he could not give any details at the time.
The ‘accident’ did indeed turn out to be a drill, and the head of the Zimbabwe CAA David Chawota admitted that he had deliberately kept journalists, other airlines and quite possibly some emergency services in the dark to see how they would respond in a ‘real’ situation. “All our systems worked perfectly” he said with a satisfaction that was probably not shared by anyone who had a friend or relative due to land in Harare yesterday morning.
The decision to fool everyone that this was indeed a real incident has attracted much criticism, and quite rightly so. Having worked in crisis management for some years and conducted such drills albeit on a much smaller scale, it is very clear that an initial priority in planning must be to avoid any misunderstanding that will lead to unnecessary distress and anxiety.
But there were other lessons that came out of this exercise that shed some light on how news of major incidents is now spread around the world in an instant. For example, the news story was flying around Twitter at an alarming rate. In the middle of the confusion the term Harare was being posted around 100 times a minute. Most users were resending the press statements from BBC or Sky, with a few adding their own comments and a few well placed idiotic and offensive remarks thrown into the mix. There was effectively a news vacuum coming from Harare and people were only too eager to fill it with speculation and rumour.
Did the major news channels play a complicit part in this feeding frenzy by adding more ‘breaking news’ messages into the Twittersphere to satisfy the craving of the masses for more updates? It would be interesting to hear from one of the major channels as to their policy for managing their Twitter accounts during such a news ‘stand-off’. What was apparent was that when the truth was confirmed about the exercise after 90 minutes of confusion, people still continued to re-send earlier messages suggesting the crash was real for some time. The rumour lived on well beyond the official ‘all clear’.
So what lessons emerge from this debacle? For airlines, misleading the public in this way is indefensible. For major news channels, as they are under an ever increasing pressure to report on stories when they have limited news, these mistakes are going to happen. The need for scrunity of facts is more important than ever, and being first is not always being the best, as this incident illustrates.
And what about us, the online public: do we have a responsibility too? In a post yesterday that every blogger and tweeter should read, David Whitley points out that as publishers we are all legally liable for the words we write and re-send; if the original writer has been libellous, then those who circulate that message may not be as immune as they think. And it goes beyond our own legal liabilities; there’s a matter of personal credibility and responsibility too. It’s so easy to resend other people’s words on a whim, often without even reading them. I suspect many people retweet based on the originator of the message and their wish to be associated with that person, rather than the message itself. A potentially risky approach.
The internet and the world of social media has created hundreds of millions of publishers. Just because we don’t all have the training and knowledge of those who call themselves publishers doesn’t make us any less liable for the words we put online, wherever they came from. The Zimbabwe air crash hoax showed us how easily a false message can spread. It should remind each and every one of us that just because others have said it, whoever they are, doesn’t mean we should believe it. And if we don’t believe it, should we really be spreading that message to the world?
Fascinating post, Andy. The Internet, instant information, all that wonderful modern tecchie stuff, is amazing and opens up the world to many. But you’re absolutely right that we all have to be very, very careful about what we say…or retweet.
I sometimes think people are so eager to get out content (their own or someone else’s), they do indeed fail to fact-check everything. Because that takes time, and in the online world, time is of the essence! Gotta get it said right now, and be one of the first to say it. And if you’re quiet, if you don’t post or tweet regularly (say, every 25 seconds), you might as well be dead in the water as far as attention is concerned. Your followers will jump ship for someone who’s saying more, and saying it more frequently. Our attention spans have certainly shrunk in the past few decades.
Definitely a great reminder to me to really check everything I’m tweeting, retweeting, writing, reporting on, and just saying is true. Thanks for an insightful post to ponder.
Thanks Julie. You put it well. It’s about speed, and if we want more followers quickly we need to be first. But as you say, it’s a fickle game so getting it right will always pay in the long run. This was a great example of this rush for the breaking story going awry. There will be plenty more, no doubt.
Andy, but I couldn’t disagree more that anyone who retweeted the erroneous information is just as responsible. It may indeed be true that some retweeted simply because they wanted to be associated with the original tweeter, but even so, how does that differ from someone quoting an article in a major newspaper that turns out not to be factual. Gossip has been around for centuries and, unless an incident is found to be willfully malicious, I seriously doubt that someone would have legal recourse. There is no way we can know if what we read is factual; we can only rely on the reputation of the publisher, be it a major newspaper or a blogger. I fully believe the fault here lies with the media who jumped on the story prior to having all the facts.
Hi Barbara, thanks for your comment. I guess we won’t know what the real liability situation is until a case is played out. One the one hand we are all publishers, and therefore may be treated as such by the law. On the other, if something is retweeted many times is there really a way to take action?
The question of gossip is very relevant. It has been around for ever; but not until now can you or I spread a rumour to so many in such a short time.
And then of course the US and UK adopt different approaches to libel, as does every country’s legal system. It’s a very murky picture for sure.