Twitter users are wondering why it is that CNN has been able to cover things from the Middle East before (us bombing/invading Iraq, etc..) with live coverage (ANY coverage) yet they remain silent on the Iranian revolution going on.
Going by the twitter entries, out of all the MSM, BBS and NPR have given the best/most coverage of what is happening in Iraq. So people are seeing that and going "if those organizations can do it, why can't the rest?"
There are a small handful of "msnbcfail" and "foxnewsfail" twitter entries, but there have been sooo many "cnnfail" followers/commenters that it is, once again as of right now, back up in the top ten "twitter trends" list. Last night it was up to number 3 on that top ten most mentioned list.
Here is yet another online article questioning CNN's noncoverage:
http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2009/06/14/cnnfail-can-twitter-out-cover-cnn/Many of us remember amazing CNN coverage as the bombs dropped in Iraq not many years ago. We watched as a small group of reporters got the news out from their hotel room in downtown Baghdad. How times have changed! This time, with important and explosive happenings in a different Middle Eastern country, CNN was almost entirely silent on the subject. Instead, it was Twitter that was filled with live alerts of the riots from all over Iran.
Cnn.com had no stories about the massive protests on behalf of Mir Hossein Mousavi all day on Saturday. Mousavi was reported to be the loser of the election by the Iranian government, who said he had lost to the sitting president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, according to a CNET story. This situation provoked unrest and led to widespread street clashes, something almost unheard of in tightly leashed Iran, reflecting popular Iranian public opinion that the election had been rigged.
(snip)
Twitter, while CNN was silent, was full of first-hand accounts from the front lines of the riots. Although Twitter seemed to be on the forefront of the news, there was also significant coverage from other media sources, from the BBC to NPR. That made the relative since of CNN on the story even more puzzling.
(snip)
Perhaps it is just that what was once rapid CNN coverage of events has been made to seem slow when we have thousands of amateur reporters Twittering from their cell phones. More likely, it is a combination of two things. There are a lot more Twitter users than CNN reporters, and they can be very vocal, as CNN has learned.
At the same time, it is equally likely that CNN has been resting on its laurels for too long, and may want to start acting like the news-gathering organization that it once was.-----------------
http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23CNNfailhttp://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23iranelectionhttp://search.twitter.com/search?q=Tehran