Nathalie Pignard-Cheynel of the Université Stendhal in Grenoble presented a study, conducted with Brigitte Sebbah of the Université de Metz, asking whether live coverage amounts to a new form of reporting. Their material was Le Monde’s live coverage of the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case: 40 hours of continuous coverage carrying some 800 messages.
The composition of the thread was the finding. Sixty per cent of the messages came from the editorial team, 36 per cent from the audience and 4 per cent from journalists at the scene, mostly via Twitter. Half of the audience messages were questions asking for more information; a third were links or information sharing.
Live coverage using tools such as CoveritLive had started in France around 2009 and 2010, initially in sport, and had proved popular. Its promise, Pignard-Cheynel argued, is to report in near real time while explaining and contextualising an event as it happens, and to leave behind a record of how the news unfolded.
What the Strauss-Kahn coverage largely lacked over those 40 hours was facts. Most of it was discussion of the case and the questions it raised, with journalists juggling speculation against confirmed information. It also showed reporters admitting what they did not know and remarking on being tired. The researchers read that as journalism visible in process: the work is demystified and the audience is brought, virtually, inside the newsroom.