Pros and cons of Periscope as journalism tool

The use of live-streaming apps such as Periscope and Meerkat has helped journalists provide unfiltered, live as-it-happens moments for viewers, according to some proponents, though others claim such technology compromises the quality and accuracy of news. Periscope, which was bought by Twitter Inc. in March, is among the most popular live-streaming apps journalists have been using. Users download the app on smartphones, log in and begin a live broadcast of whatever they’re doing. For news outlets such as CBC/Radio-Canada and Shaw Communications Inc.’s Global TV, the app has provided an additional avenue for web-based content in the coverage of breaking news or specific events. Mark McAllister, a Toronto-based reporter with Global News, said in a phone interview that because Periscope is an app that can be accessed easily on your smartphone, it has broadened the scope for reporters to show viewers something that is happening right then and there, without having to send out a crew to film with satellite trucks or other big equipment. Pras Rajagopalan, executive producer at CBC in Kitchener, Ont., said in an email that using an app like Periscope “simplifies the live streaming process,” but that there will be times where higher-video quality is needed to bring a story to life. McAllister noted that because of Periscope’s newness, it “doesn’t completely lend itself to what broadcasters do" in terms of television broadcasts, noting how it only captures vertical images that do not fit neatly into the landscape dimension of a TV shot. Rajagopalan said when CBC used the app at a recent live speech event, a lot of time was spent in making sure the app was deployed correctly to get good video footage and making sure there were no glitches. “A lot of the challenges were logistical in nature, ensuring that we’re set up in a good spot for WiFi so the stream doesn’t cut out and making sure users can easily see and hear what’s going on,” Rajagopalan said. Jeffrey Dvorkin, a director of the journalism program at the University of Toronto, said in a phone interview that the use of these streaming apps has caused journalists to be more immediate with stories, which is devaluing the obligation for quality. “It’s making journalists more responsive to breaking news events, and at the same time it's downplaying the obligation to be contextual," he said. Dvorkin said it results in news outlets seeking out "the low hanging fruit that we can get easily and cheaply," with lower costs being part of the incentive. “It’s cheapening the production of content, it’s also diminishing the value of the journalist,” he said. Dvorkin said the danger with such streaming apps is that immediacy creates a tendency for journalists to “overemphasize something that should not be emphasized or trivialize things about which people really shouldn’t concern themselves.” Steve Ladurantaye, a former Globe and Mail reporter, now head of news and government partnerships at Twitter Canada, said in a phone interview that live video-streaming apps have been helpful for journalists because they not only shorten the time to report on a story, but also give viewers the perspective of raw unfiltered footage. “We’re going from a place where if you were to broadcast, you would go bring your camera, film and go back to the studio and you would spend six hours editing,” he said. “It’s progressed from there to people live tweeting things or blogging, and now we’re at the point where you can go even beyond that and actually show things happening in real time for people around the world to see.” Ladurantaye acknowledged that inaccuracies can happen when using such social-media tools, so it’s important for editors and producers to properly vet such coverage just like they would for any story. He said if "a reporter is using Periscope to show unsubstantiated footage that they don’t understand, or interview people they haven’t vetted, that’s probably not the best use of Periscope,” he said. “It’s still incumbent upon a reporter to make sure they’re not broadcasting inaccurate information. Whether they’re using Periscope or Twitter, or going on a live television hit, it doesn’t make a difference.” However, McAllister said vetting usually only happens after a live stream if the footage, which can be saved onto your phone, is being reused for a broadcast. He said if going live with Periscope, he uses his own journalistic judgment and treats it as if he were to go on live TV. Rajagopalan said there is consultation among journalists before the fact when using social media streaming tools. “There is a conversation between the reporter and the producer before the event about goals and expectations; it’s important to define those clearly,” he said. "How are we providing value for our users when we deploy this app? ... Those are the key questions we’ve addressed before heading out into the field. And, of course, we come up with contingency plans in case something goes awry." Rajagopalan added: "The major benefit of using Periscope is that it’s a social app that already has a user base. And that user base is a big one — it’s owned by Twitter — so you potentially gain access to a huge audience of social users.” — With reporting by Shruti Shekar at sshekar@thewirereport.ca and editing by Derek Abma at dabma@thewirereport.ca

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Pros and cons of Periscope as journalism tool

Broadcast | July 8, 2015

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Eastlink unveils video streaming app

OPC supports PIAC call for CRTC to clarify rules for tracing apps

Alberta tracing app review could ‘inspire confidence’: privacy expert

Privacy commissioner hasn’t approved new gov’t contact tracing app

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us