By Ryan G. Murphy, RTNDA Digital Media Editor

In 1989, the now seemingly archaic fax machine opened the western world’s eyes to the Tiananmen Square massacre and unlocked a door previously sealed shut by China’s insistence on suppressing all things democratic.
 
Fast forward 20 years to the streets of Tehran, during a tumultuous election, where Twitter has replaced the fax machine as the nouveau technology and tweets have revolutionized the concept of revolution.

As Chris Parry of the Vancouver Sun writes, with technology suddenly allowing every single person a worldwide pulpit to speak truth (often anonymously) to power, the only way to stop the people organizing is to pull the plug on all communication - which hurts the government's ability to defend itself as much as it does those engaging in revolution.

Whether or not we’ll look back to today in 2029 and site Twitter as a means to revolution in Iran has yet to be determined. And it’s much less relevant – at least for now – than how our news organizations are managing coverage and fitting into the social networking puzzle.

By now you’ve read all the praise of Twitter and you’ve probably seen firsthand how valuable it and other social networking sites can be, so I realize a blog offering unending praise offers little value. My perspective, at least in writing, is to be the devil’s advocate and remind you, as the news decision maker, to handle Twitter how  you would other forms of citizen journalism – as a litmus test for news with the opportunity of verifying something your audience can use.

Your news organization may feel the same way about Twitter in Iran as the U.S. State Department – “bring on those tweets” – but there are a few variables to consider.

In a revolutionary environment, any news environment for that matter, Twitter’s greatest strength is also its greatest weakness – people. Citizen journalism certainly has is value,  but it’s not hard to see where propaganda, incomplete reports and rhetoric can creep in.  It’s imperative that news directors and other news decision makers  are vigilant in verifying their online sources.

Pointing your audience towards #IranElection on Twitter may help some people get more information, it would certainly offer them some of the story, visually, but consider what the link says about your news organization’s decision making. If a blatant lie, an incomplete picture or a tweet from an unconfirmed source is reported as fact on Twitter, and you’re linking to it, will the news consumer consider you irresponsible? Even if you’re as transparent as can be?

Diverse reporting is also a big issue when using social networking sites like Twitter. In many cases, online sources are more likely to be younger (perhaps more educated) folks with better access to computers than some. It’s important that their side is not the only side of the story reported. The situation in Iran is very unique, of course, but the responsibility to ensure comprehensive, accurate coverage is still a consideration.

As with any revolution, it’s important to repress the inclination towards chaos and focus on what is going to bring about a progressive, fundamental change. In its relatively short life, Twitter has taken on responsibilities far greater than its founders thought possible.  It can be a very useful resource for stations that can’t have a reporter physically on the story, especially considering the decrease in international reporting by most news outlets.    Despite its exponentially increasing popularity, it’s important that we look at Twitter and see how much true news value we can pull from it instead of how much of it we can use.