As police combed through the streets of Boston in the wake of the deadly marathon bombing, a different type investigation was taking place -- one that experts say points to a dramatic shift in how citizens not only consume the news, but participate in it.

But was it a success in Boston? While digital investigators examined thousands of photos and tips, the three key breaks in the Boston bombing case seem to have been provided by traditional, old-fashioned eyewitness reports:

A witness at the Boston Marathon gave police a visual description of suspected bombers and their bags, providing a key clue as investigators scanned photos.

A man whose car was hijacked Thursday night provided more details.

And finally, the big break in the case late Friday, when police allowed Watertown residents to leave their homes after a day-long lockup. A man spotted the remaining suspect in a boat in his backyard and called police.

Media experts say while crowdsourcing did not ultimately pinpoint the two brothers police allege were behind the deadly bombings, the unfolding of the investigation online points to a monumental shift in how breaking news is covered.

“You had a high profile event. You had a dramatic news event, a bombing. You had this happen in North America, a very connected society,” says Alfred Hermida, an associate journalism professor at the University of British Columbia.

Hermida, a 16-year veteran of the BBC, told CTVNews.ca that in the aftermath of the Boston bombings, a “news vacuum” occurred where very little about the situation was known.

“Suddenly, this is when people turn to social media. They turn to looking at the pictures and videos because they’re trying to make sense of what happened,” he said. “It’s natural human instinct to try and get any sort of information.”

The ability to follow real-time updates on the bombings and subsequent investigation from first-hand witnesses generated a stronger interest in the events, according to McMaster University communications professor Alex Sevigny.

“Here, it was friends and neighbours sharing their grief, their shock, their fear, finding one another on Twitter, but finding one another in a very public fashion,” Sevigny said. “That’s exactly what would happen if you were actually there on the ground.

“What Twitter did in particular, is it made it very immediate. It also made it very present and the crowdsourcing and the investigation afterwards, the manhunt, intensified that.”

Mounds of information could slow investigation

The proliferation of smartphones means police now have more information than ever to piece together an investigation, but it also leads to more tips that are not credible, according to Christopher Schneider, associate professor of sociology at UBC.

“The Internet brings crimes to everyone’s attention, simultaneously,” Schneider said, explaining that authorities are under increased pressure to make arrests when it comes to highly-publicized cases.

“(The suspect) was captured in 48 hours, but people were angry. They wanted him arrested yesterday, and social media exacerbates the problem.”

Schneider said when authorities are slow to release information, mainstream media begins to look at social media “to fill space.”

“With social media we become witness to the event itself. We can literally watch the event unfold on Twitter and Facebook and through YouTube videos. We’ve become cyber-witnesses, and that’s something that’s a new phenomenon.”

While the masses of information are now a staple of 21st-century investigations, Hermida says both authorities and mass media must “catch up” to make the best use of the information.

“How to you create a situation where you can mobilize people who might know something?” Hermida said. “I suspect this is where the discussion is happening in newsrooms and for police. If we want the public to help us how can we create a mechanism and channel the enthusiasm and channel the desire of people to help us.”