Boston Marathon Calamity Shows Value of Social Media

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


It might be no surprise that immediately after the explosions at today’s Boston Marathon, social media sites became the best way for the public to obtain on-the-scene reports. But notably, it also became the best way for classic news media to report. Even more than that, the long minutes after the news broke showed just how superior social media is for finding answers to your own personal concerns.

Here are some examples—there are many more—that arose within a few hours of the blasts:

Scientific American contributor, David Dobbs, who lives in Vermont, was re-tweeting Twitter posts from his son, @taylordobbs, who was very close to the explosion. Taylor was also posting Twitter pics and when ABC News saw them, a reporter asked Taylor, via Twitter, if ABC could use the photos in its news reports. Taylor said yes, as long as ABC properly credited him.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


On the Twitter feed #bostonmarathon, people were factchecking news flashes and debunking false information almost in real time.

The Web site Reddit maintained a thread that aggregated a wide variety of information sources much faster than any media organization.

And Wikipedia started a page called Boston Marathon Explosion that contributors across the area and beyond were updating continuously.

The Boston Athletic Association had a site where fans could check the split times of every runner, which instantly became a way to see if individuals crossed the finish line—meaning, if they did not, they might have been injured by the explosions.

Perhaps most impressively, Google quickly created a Person Finder site that allowed people to post the name of a friend or family member they were desperately looking for, and which allowed people to post information about someone they had found.

On the bottom half of the page, Google added a note that read: “All data entered will be available to the public and viewable and usable by anyone.” That pretty much sums it up.

Mark Fischetti was a senior editor at Scientific American for nearly 20 years and covered sustainability issues, including climate, environment, energy, and more. He assigned and edited feature articles and news by journalists and scientists and also wrote in those formats. He was founding managing editor of two spin-off magazines: Scientific American Mind and Scientific American Earth 3.0. His 2001 article “Drowning New Orleans” predicted the widespread disaster that a storm like Hurricane Katrina would impose on the city. Fischetti has written as a freelancer for the New York Times, Sports Illustrated, Smithsonian and many other outlets. He co-authored the book Weaving the Web with Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, which tells the real story of how the Web was created. He also co-authored The New Killer Diseases with microbiologist Elinor Levy. Fischetti has a physics degree and has twice served as Attaway Fellow in Civic Culture at Centenary College of Louisiana, which awarded him an honorary doctorate. In 2021 he received the American Geophysical Union’s Robert C. Cowen Award for Sustained Achievement in Science Journalism. He has appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press, CNN, the History Channel, NPR News and many radio stations.

More by Mark Fischetti

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe