OPINION: What The Ottawa Shootings Can Teach Us About Social Media As a News Source

I have been on social media for a LONG time. In the time that I have been online, I have taken part in real-time discussions and analysis for a variety of events in the security “lane”. I’ve talked about an assortment of events ranging from Dorner to the Ottawa shooting. Each time, I’m astounded by how fast the events that transpire are posted in almost-real-time. The advent of the Internet and the smart phone has made all bystanders on-scene correspondents and social media users like myself the most sought-after “experts”. I argue, therein lies social media’s greatest drawback during these events.

1. We get stuff wrong a lot. Yesterday’s shooting highlights some of my frustrations with social media as a news sources. On more than one occasion, various sources posted certain information as vetted “facts”. Most of those reports were false and depicted a scene far more chaotic than the one that was occurring. Why? For a lot of reasons – some of which I don’t have enough space in this forum to adequately articulate. Chief among them – confirmation bias. Many of us were simply re-posting information that solely confirmed what we either wanted the scene to be or the headline struck an emotional chord. Worse than that is another reason not related to confirmation bias but perception bias – some people re-posted information because it supported a prejudice or a political ideology.
2. We ignored the danger of “first reports”. I have but one cardinal rule with social media as a news source remember ALWAYS  “first reports” are wrong. Seriously, the first eyewitness accounts from a major incident will almost surely be wrong. Why? Because eyewitnesses suck. No two people in an attack ever see the same thing and their perceptions will also be markedly different. The folks at the Innocence Project do “yeoman’s work” on this very issue for their clients. I HIGHLY suggest we all read up on their work to understand why we shouldn’t always trust unconfirmed eyewitness reports.
3. We created confusion in order to stay relevant. That sounds harsh and mean. Hear me out. With some of us having “followers”, during an event like Ottawa or Dorner or Boston, it is very tempting to believe we either need to share information which has already been posted several times over or comment on that information before they can be vetted in order to appear on top of things. Instead, we should wait until the information can be verified and is still relevant to events happening in the present. These events can be confusing and there is no need to add to the chaos and potentially colour the situation in a way that is not accurate. Our time to pontificate on the events can come later.
4. We confuse hazardous behavior with context. I get it. The bullets are flying and you want the entire world to know. I get it. Your shot could be the one that depicts the essence of the event. I want you to get that shot. I also want you to be safe and not to place first responders in jeopardy. STOP POSTING LOCATIONS OF YOURSELF AND OFFICERS RELATIVE TO THE SHOOTER AND WHAT YOU’RE HEARING VIA POLICE SCANNERS. Guys, I was a 911 dispatcher many moons ago and I’ve worked in a security and law enforcement for over a decade. If there’s one thing I know from my career, law enforcement operations can be extremely difficult for even seasoned pros to decipher and scanners are not always a good place to get an accurate account of what’s happening. A cop responding to a shooting is just a cop responding to a scene. If he hasn’t verified a shooting took place, a shooting hasn’t taken place.
5. We assumed shooter counts and body counts were accurate. There are few things that can either mellow people out or cause even more chaos on social media than body and shooter counts. During the Ottawa shooting, the number of shooters originally accounted for by social media was up to FIVE with a couple of shooters on roofs. That depicts a much different scene than the one we later found to be true of one shooter who was shot and killed inside a building. Keep in mind, law enforcement would only confirm initially one shooter in the beginning, yet somehow there was five. How did that happen? It happened for all of the reasons I’ve talked about in this post and one that is far more dangerous.
6. We believed people with “sources close to law enforcement”. Nothing makes me cringe more than hearing “The police confirmed XYZ” from a person on social media only to learn the source cited as “the police” was cited by the media as a “source close to law enforcement”. What does this mean if not “the police”? It simply means two things – either the source is a cop who is giving out information to the press without authorization or it’s someone the media knows is not a cop and your knowledge of that truth could diminish how you view the accuracy of the source. A perfect example of the latter is a cop’s wife or an intern at the police department. They both have access to insider information but neither of them are actually investigating anything. There is also another reality – the “source” could also be made up. No matter how bad the sourcing could be, I grow disheartened more and more as we accept this as a set of reliable information to base opinions and reactions to.

So what can we do? What advice do I have? I’d been thinking about this all day, when I discovered the tweet below. My suggestion, as I added below, is to – “read and heed”.

THIS. Read and heed!! pic.twitter.com/hSwE5LeKRi
— Scriven King (@scrivenlking) October 23, 2014

Quote of the Day

The “Rules” From 1829 Which NYPD Commish Bratton Carries

In 1829, Sir Robert Peel, upon founding the Metropolitan Police in London (the world’s first recorded organized police force), believed certain principles would guide his department into being professional and accountable. There were various attempts at policing before but none had ventured to be as organized as Peel’s was. While “the Met” is the first organized and officially sanctioned police force in the world, many officers are unaware of who he is or the principles he founded modern policing on. As events continue to occur which cause the public to question the professionalism and accountability of its police officers, I HIGHLY suggest any student of criminal justice and policing read these principles and determine whether their respective police departments still adhere to these principles or if they’re mere guides.

• Principle 1 – “The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.”

• Principle 2 – “The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.”

• Principle 3 – “Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.”

• Principle 4 – “The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.”

• Principle 5 – “Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to the public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.”

• Principle 6 – “Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.”

• Principle 7 – “Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public  who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

• Principle 8 – “Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.”

• Principle 9 – “The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.”

Many moons ago, I had a young military police officer tell me, “Staff Sergeant King, we’re cops – NOT customer service!” She was frustrated at other military members who she felt demanded more than what she perceived the job required. I understood her frustration but I also knew the other members were absolutely correct. Police officers may not have clients in the same way their security counterparts do,  but they do “service” a more influential group of people – citizens. Most cops sign up thinking their days and nights will be spent on countless foot-chases and solving major crimes. In fact, while these things do occur, they do not make up the bulk of a cop’s existence. Even in those situations and various “calls for service”, police officers must never forget the public is heavily influenced by how officers treat their requests and how they respond to them.