http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-egypt-protests-20120503,0,6756130.story
Attack on protesters in Egypt leaves 11 dead
I thought the LA times covered this story very well. The story gave readers information on the recent violence as well as an overview of the political situation in Egypt.
There was something I hadn't seem before in a international story and that was a quote from twitter:
"It's the duty of the state to protect peaceful sit-ins," Aboul Fotouh said on Twitter. "It's not the role of the citizen to face daily attempts to break the sit-in."
The story begins with the news that 11 people were killed and 200 people were wounded at a protest in Cairo. The story says the assailants stormed the 500 demonstrators.
Then, in the third paragraph, the author makes the claim that the violence has exacerbated tension for the countries transition to democracy. The story continues by explaining other violent protests in the past months.
I found it interesting that the reporters used this as a source and it's amazing that Twitter has become a legitimate source. Although, the story does not say at all who this Aboul Forouh is and where in the world he is located. What concerns me about using twitter sourcing is ANYONE could have said it. The reporters do not make it clear who the source is and they may have contacted the person in order to use their quote - but who knows.
Later in the story, instead of "said" the other uses the verb "tweeted" to introduce a quote from a political activist.
Does twitter make information easier and more convenient - or is it cheating?
I think Twitter is a valuable source and the story does not rely on twitter for it's sources as it brings in other quotes. It's just interesting to source a story with information from Twitter - but I feel we always have to be skeptical of what we see and always verify the information by contacting the individual.
