![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tagrynAndrew Sullivan's coverage of the Iranian protests has been heavily reliant on Twitter and other IM sources. That's good in terms of bipassing the censorship which the mullahs have put on the Web and blogs, but there is a downside: there's little to no editing or quality control, so a lot of "rumors" become "fact" without vetting as to their actual merit. I am reminded of this post that Den Beste made at the start of the Iraq war on the 'fog of war' phenomena which so often shrouds events as they're reported in real-time. Also, the research on 'eyewitness' accounts generally shows that even they are filtered through the viewer's own perceptions of what they are expecting to see.
So things like the police using electric batons, using acid in their water cannons, the police and basjibeing supplemented with Hezbollah/Arabs, etc? Its wise to be skeptical of the more out-there claims, even if the person Twittering them does believe them to be true.
So things like the police using electric batons, using acid in their water cannons, the police and basjibeing supplemented with Hezbollah/Arabs, etc? Its wise to be skeptical of the more out-there claims, even if the person Twittering them does believe them to be true.
