The #26th March

A few weeks ago, I challenged researchers to gauge the role social media played in revolutionary events in the Middle East. Then on Saturday, I also wondered what role social media was playing on the protests in London. So I decided to follow the events on the television and on Twitter, and to write down news as it came in on both media.

Methods like this have been used by communication scholars for years. In 1960, Deutschmann & Danielson used “firehouse research” to gain fairly reliable information on the diffusion of major news stories. And more recently, a study by Rogers & Seidel used similar methods to record the diffusion of news of the September 11 terrorist attack.

For those watching BBC News 24, the story begins at Hyde Park, where Labour leader, Ed Miliband, is speaking of his support for the protests. Aerial BBC footage shows thousands of people watching Miliband, and thousands more marching peacefully towards Hyde Park from Victoria Embankment.

A few minutes into Miliband’s speech, BBC News 24 goes to a split screen, with the new screen following a suspicious-looking group of breakaway hooded protesters gathering on Oxford Street.

Coverage of Miliband’s speech vanishes as protesters clash with a small group of police officers outside Topshop. A few protesters throw paint and other projectiles at the shop’s windows. They call themselves the “black bloc” and they claim that firms like Topshop have avoided paying millions in corporation tax – a bitter pill to swallow given nationwide austerity measures.

For the next thirty minutes or so, highlights of the clashes on Oxford Street are shown, interspersed with cuts to Parliament Square where peaceful protesters are interviewed. Brief highlights of Ed Miliband’s speech are shown, and coverage moves to Libya, where rebel forces have taken a key strategic city from Gaddafi.

For the next thirty minutes, BBC coverage moves back and forth between Oxford Street, where mostly placid hooded protesters are gathering, and Parliament Square, where thousands of peaceful protesters are still marching towards Hyde Park.

By now, the BBC have cameras and reporters positioned to cover all major locations. Coverage becomes more of a montage, with snippets of interviews played over the top of images, as well as descriptions of events by reporters in the studio.

It has taken somewhere over 1 hour for the BBC to generate a coherent story which it can amend and repeat every five or ten minutes. As the afternoon develops, these amendments include protesters vandalising the Ritz and several banks, as well as a sit-in at Fortnum & Mason. Gradually, police seem to take control from protesters, and by the time it grows dark, things seem to be getting back to normal.

For those following events on Twitter – via “#26March” within a 5-mile radius of Trafalgar Square – the story begins at Victoria Embankment, where thousands of people gather to begin the march to Hyde Park. Tweets are mostly exclamations of the peaceful attitude of protesters, many of whom assume the police will use “kettling” tactics. One protester tweets, “My kettle survival kit has 4 hot cross buns and a ribena”.

Tweets debate the volume of protesters, with estimates ranging from 100,000 (TUC) to 750,000 (Unison). Tweets also reveal the pleasure protesters are taking in the banners and signs being carried. A popular sign contains a “spitting image” of Margaret Thatcher with a caption saying, “Your mum”.

Another says, “Pig Society”.

Another: “Two things I dislike about Nick Clegg: his face”.

Tweets reveal the diversity of protesters. There are homeless people, people in wheelchairs, Latin Americans, environmentalists, Unison representatives… One tweets, “So many meanings”.

There are also people who aren’t there to protest. Several freelance photographers are tweeting. And the Metropolitan Police itself is tweeting about the progress of the march, which reaches Hyde Park at 12:46.

At 13:09, tweets reveal a Trojan horse is carried by protesters outside Downing Street. At 13:13, Jono Warren reveals that a group of protesters have occupied McDonald’s at Leicester Square. Then at 13:27, protesters shut down Boots at Piccadilly Circus. At 13:39, Jono tweets, “Black bloc letting off smoke flares as they march up Regent Street”. And at 13:40, he reports protesters throwing paint and fireworks at the RBS building on Conduit Street. At 13:44, Jono reveals the “black bloc” are on Bond Street, where shops are lowering their shutters. At 14:01, Topshop on Oxford Street is “redecorated”.

At 14:43, a tweet suggests “it’s about to kick off” at Piccadilly Circus. At 14:56, Jono thanks Soho Firestation for attending to his injuries after he was “hit in the head by a rock”.

At 14:57, hooded protesters occupy the Ritz. By 15:17, “anarchists” have entered Hyde Park. Then at 16:05, protesters appear to occupy Fortnum & Mason. And at 16:39, the Trojan horse is burned on Oxford Street.

At 18:27, the Metropolitan Police surround Fortnum & Mason, which is now a “crime scene”. By now many people have either gone home or to the pub.

Tweets describe the hooded protesters as “champagne socialists”. One tweet bemoans “headlines drowning out the march’s message”. Another wonders why people act like idiots in front of cameras. Another suggests the protesters are upset because they won’t get a cupcake. Another is upset by the targeting of HMV, M&S and Waterstone’s, as these businesses pay their taxes. Another is “disgusted” at the hooded protesters. There is a definite divide between the tiny anarchic minority and everyone else. Although everyone else is still a diverse bunch.

Many tweets continue to say how big a turnout it is and how proud they are to be part of such a peaceful protest. Many more express their frustration that mass media coverage has been diverted away from the main march by a few hundred idiotic protesters. There is a sense of disappointment that small-scale sensationalism seems more important than large-scale protest.

These two accounts – one from BBC News 24 and one from Twitter – highlight an essential difference:

Simplicity.

The BBC’s version of events is a high-quality streamlined narrative which fits nicely into a five or ten minute segment. It has few rough edges and few internal disagreements. It is designed for a mass market which looks to the “news” for an entertaining and accessible account of the world.

The version we get from Twitter is the opposite. It’s a complicated “history from below” told by a diverse rabble of competing voices. It is not designed. It is not the work of a cohesive group of journalists working to targets and deadlines. It is a marketing nightmare, appealing to countless tiny niches.

And yet, in spite of the obvious advantages of the BBC model, Twitter and other social media are doing something to our understanding of the world. Commentators call it “democratisation”. But that is just a word. Somehow these changes are influencing our expectations of the media.

But to be more precise demands research. And the information is out there for those with the time and inclination to find out.