Still trying to wrap my head around the Marathon bombings less than 20 miles away Monday, I was shocked to see a combination of news reports collectively claiming social media provided comfort and information to concerned parties locally, regionally and nationally. Not quite the case.

To understand what did and didn’t happen starting immediately after the explosions, you must first look at the type of the event, demographics, and the availability of wireless and wired infrastructure. And when it comes to information dissemination – each communication method has strengths and weaknesses.

Just because social media usage spiked as the mayhem began doesn’t mean it was the preferred or most effective means of getting in touch – let alone conveying key information to the masses.

Aftermath

Wireless service was shut down as the volume of inbound calls to a compact geographical area overwhelmed network facilities, just as tragedies had on the public switched telephone network in the era before wireless proliferation. 

Complaints piled up from the inability to connect this way with friends, family members and those working in the area.

It these situations, you have a better chance of sneaking through a text than completing a call, as service providers will tell you the former requires fewer resources – time.

The loss of wireless crippled many of the methods people would have used to quickly get in touch with friends and loved ones to check in. But when it comes to getting information on the tragedy that ended the marathon, wireless was hardly missed.

In fact, as has been the case with most every tragedy on U.S. soil, people learn, or tune in for information and comfort to broadcast TV and radio first, second, third and foremost. I witnessed this first hand Monday, and in several past instances.

Information Please!

Twitter (News - Alert)? Since when does anyone think of Tweets as accurate, let alone question the authenticity of those sending them? While Tweeting increases in popularity and volume, its value as a means of distributing important news (not what an entertainer is up to or sports figure thinks about his stature) is minimal at best. That’s especially the case with important news, not “infotainment.”

It is what it is. And a viable news feed it certainly isn’t.

Given that Boston has the largest concentration of colleges and universities, I can only feel for all the parents trying to reach their kids to see if they were ok at the huge annual spectator sport held on a state holiday. I doubt they Tweeted them for information or comfort (know your demographic).

Thwarted wirelessly, I know many who tried landlines, video, e-mail and more to connect. They had much better success and didn’t even consider social media options. I’m certain wireless went white hot upon its return, but when a tragedy occurs and you’re concerned about others, Twitter and non-instant social media options just don’t break into the top three. I don’t expect they will anytime soon.

Facebook (News - Alert) Huddling?

One report claimed that folks were huddled around Facebook to find out if their friends were okay.

If you work under the premise that most friends are not local, using the site for ASAP info such as people’s safety seems like a tough sell. If it’s your family (parents) that are remote and want your 411, there are many more direct alternatives.

Social media has value in specific applications, but when tragedy strikes – hyper-local, national or global – I’ll take TV and radio (maybe not the Emergency Broadcasting System) over Tweets.

Looking Ahead

Social media (including Twitter) sure seems more of an enhancer to things we already do today for business and/or pleasure. That’s relative to a primary means of connecting.

With all the other more trusted and widely used communications methods, if I’m looking for important information that I can count on for validity and measurable value, I won’t be looking to social media.

Not yet. But news providers, running on a longer news cycle, are far from 100 percent accurate. For example, AP reported (and many others re-reported) that wireless service was taken down by authorities after the explosions for fear it would be used to detonate additional devices.

Wireless operators called that false and AP changed its original statement.

Still, for basic info, TV and radio win outside of the workplace, where the Web dominates. When it comes to updates, going direct comes to mind, especially in a mayhem and tragedy situation like the bombing at the Boston Marathon Monday.