The difference a decade makes

On Monday morning, before I had even gotten out of bed, I already knew that Osama Bin Laden had been killed.

I knew that he had died in a US helicopter raid on the compound he was staying in, in Pakistan. I had watched US president Barack Obama's national address, and I had read news articles reporting it was Bin Laden's trusted courier that led them to the world's most wanted terrorist. I knew all of this without even switching on a TV.

All of this information was available in the palm of my hand - already filtered and commented on by my Facebook friends and Twitter feed in the social media applications on my smartphone.

Flash back nearly 10 years, to 11 September 2001. It was a normal afternoon on a school day that involved the usual homework avoidance, until my mom received a phone call from my dad. He told her to switch on the TV.

We sat glued to the breaking news broadcast for the rest of the day, watching the news unfold.

Twitter, the social media service that broke the news of Bin Laden's death, didn't even exist in 2001.

Kathryn McConnachie, journalist, ITWeb

In the days following the attacks we bought every magazine and newspaper we could find - even buying tabloids for the sake of the photo-features - anything that would provide some more information, more comment and more context.

The media coverage of the death of Osama Bin Laden, compared to the coverage of the terror attacks that led to the decade-long manhunt, essentially demonstrates the evolution of the news process. It shows the changes in the way in which we experience and participate in the production and dissemination of information in the digital age.

The most notable changes are the development of social networks and the wireless communication technology that enables them and, in certain instances, transforms them into live news feeds or a newswire for the masses.

Twitter, the social media service that broke the news of Bin Laden's death, didn't even exist in 2001. Yet now in 2011, before the US president even addressed the nation, Twitter feeds were abuzz with the news.

Sohaib Athar and Mohsin Shah became overnight Twitter-celebrities, after they both unwittingly live-tweeted the US raid that killed Bin Laden.

As noted by Dan Gillmor in his 2004 book, We The Media, in 2001 the key building blocks of emergent grassroots journalism were in place, and 9/11 brought the emerging possibilities to the surface.

The most gripping stories were those that emerged later of final telephone calls to loved-ones, and the eye-witness accounts of survivors.

Most news publications had at least some degree of online presence, but the bulk of information that was disseminated around the world came through the television and radio broadcasts, coupled with the print publications of the time.

Commentator and search engine expert, Danny Sullivan, remembers how Google reacted “miserably” during the 9/11 attacks.

The search engine used its ads space and special links on its homepage to keep its users updated, because its search algorithm returned out-of-date and negligible results.

The Google landing page even contained a message stating the most current information would be found on TV or radio. It also warned that many online news services were not available because of the extremely high demand.

Events such as 9/11 helped to bring about the creation of Google News, and search results for Osama Bin Laden are now topped with the latest news stories.

The rise of social networks and their resultant impact on the media landscape has become increasingly evident in recent years.

The numerous North African uprisings and the earthquake and tsunami in Japan are just two examples of major events in which social media has played a pivotal role. Not only are the services becoming instrumental in events themselves, but they also serve as a means of communicating with a growing global audience.

Many have postulated about what would have been different had technology and social media been at the point it is now, back in 9/11. One fundamental aspect would certainly have been present - that of first hand, real-time accounts and footage of what was being experienced.

While traditional media will always provide analysis and in-depth reporting, there is undoubtedly value (and of course insatiable interest) in the immediate first-hand, personal accounts of events - even if they are just 140 characters.

There is also value in the multitude of opinions and the sheer scope of information we are exposed to by simply following people on Twitter or having a diverse group of Facebook friends.

In his keynote address at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, in March, Twitter CEO Dick Costolo said he wanted Twitter to be “instantly useful, simple and always present - it needs to be like water".

He envisions it growing into a service that is so integrated into our daily lives that we hardly even notice it's there - that the information that it disseminates is more important than the medium itself.

While at the moment, the fact that news was broken on a social media service is still news in itself; there can be no doubt that such services are becoming embedded in the news process.

Traditional media will continue to incorporate and make use of social media services, as the different platforms deal with the same news stories in different ways. But sites like Twitter will keep the media on its toes.

The value of the global conversation that social networks can generate should not be underestimated. There is an innate human desire to respond to and engage with issues and events that we feel strongly about, and the social networks cater for that.

Today, we are able to participate in the news process (even be at the centre of it if you're in the right place at the right time) and in another decade we will certainly be able to communicate in ways that we cannot yet imagine.

I hope the digital age will continue to drive conversations, stimulate engagement and enrich the news process in a way that simply sitting glued to the TV screen can not.