I feel it is applicable, in a general sense, to say what this growing information divide comes down to facts vs fiction. Propaganda vs reality.
The reality provided by reporting/editorializing/ information provided by twitter and other social media outlets including facebook. I am also including the blogosphere here and will be calling them all combined the alternative media from here on.
As opposed to the same services provided by the corporate, government influenced main stream media.
This is the full article, I am going to quote what I call the "meat and potatoes"
Concordia University anthropology professor Maximilian Forte, who gives seminars about political activism on the Internet, says he was able to witness that split by tracking two of his students, one who followed conventional media such as cable news, the other in the streets using Twitter.
The G20 according to one who followed conventional media or main stream?
Only writing about anarchists, about what ‘thugs and goons’ they are, how they really deserved to get the crap beaten out of them while focusing on the destruction of private property and, of course, praising the police,” says Forte. “For him, there was this kind of homogenization that all the protesters were the same as these so-called ‘Black Bloc’ people.
The G20 according to the one tracking twitter for information from multiple sources?
‘OMG the rule of law was just discarded,’ ” concurs Hirsh. “It’s a real stark contrast.”
There was a clear contrast between journalists who were using Twitter and journalists who weren’t,”
“Journalists giving on-the-ground reports were far more accurate than those in newsrooms like (Peter) Mansbridge or Ann Rohmer.
“The use of social media, it really does help to establish a public record, one that could contradict in very graphic and very concrete ways the official record, what is produced by the mainstream media,”
How is it that the people using twitter were far more accurate in their reporting then the talking heads in the newsrooms?
Could the talking heads not access the same information?
Of course they could! But, they didn't. Why?
I would think it is because the "talking heads" are not interested in accuracy, they are interested in indoctrination on behalf of the state or political interests
Therefore they inform the viewer in a way that benefits the power's that be.
We saw this type of misinformation promoted previously in the piece done by talking head
Mark Kelly on his show "Connect with". You can refresh your memory here
Here Mark Kelly served the status quo by mantaining the standard black vs white reporting on Israel. Israel always good, right and always the victim. Completely out of touch with any reality.
If you wonder why so many people hold ill informed opinions. Look no further then corporate/political main stream media.
Think of Operation Mockingbird
"You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month."