Exploring Twitter
via twitter.com
I created a Twitter account the other day out of sheer curiosity. I’d heard all about it’s major role during the Mumbai attacks and how users in India used it to spread the news as it broke. “Tweets” would go out containing microblogs of eyewitness accounts as the event unfolded, alerting the world to the situation and allowing loved ones to quickly contact each other to let them know they were safe.
I can see how it can be useful during events like this, but other than that I am unimpressed. Perhaps it is because I only have five “followers” and am not tapping into the true potential of the site, or maybe it is because it appears to be nothing more than a glorified Facebook status. With only space for 140 characters, each “tweet” has to be to the point and doesn’t leave much room for detail. Anyone can have one and post just about anything; whether it is what they are doing at the moment, events they have heard about, or in my friend’s cases, nonsense. These factors are the reason I have a problem with people using terms like “Twitter Journalism.”
Rory O’Connor titled his article with that term, after interviewing the co-founder of Twitter, Biz Stone, about the site’s rising role in journalism. Stone explained they started realizing Twitter’s capability for breaking news after reports of ground shaking in during some tremors California came out nine minutes before the first Associated Press alert. “So we knew early on that a shared event such as an earthquake would lead people to look at Twitter for news almost without thinking,” Stone said.
That quote bothered me as I began thinking back on journalistic standards and editing. These “tweets” that people send out are not fact-checked and certainly are not looked over by an editor first. It is raw information in it’s purest form and, while it could be a useful tool in reporting, it should not be considered journalism itself. People should not be looking to Twitter for news without thinking.
Stone then goes on to boast how the majority of news outlets, such as the New York Times, have realized this capability and joined the site. I went over to the NY Times Twitter account to see exactly how they were using this tool, only to find each “tweet” was an extremely brief headline and a link to a story. My impression was that it was an unorganized collection of stories and that I would rather visit the NY Times site instead.
While some may believe that Twitter is a new form of journalism, I disagree. I believe that it can be a great addition to the world of reporting and is a good way to send out quick alerts that could lead to real news stories.
Journalistic aspects aside, I find Twitter to be quite amusing and find myself mindlessly updating as I please, but none of it is newsworthy.
And now for a semi-related cartoon comedy video about Twitter!
Social Media and Web 2.0 is where journalism is heading. Among the 20+ print magazines to close last year, half of them continue on in web as well as community with multimedia, video, Facebook & MySpace accounts, and social media such as StumbleUpon, Digg, and Vimeo. While many Twitter accounts are not looked over by an editor, there ARE many editors and corporate accounts on Twitter such as @BlissSpa, @MarieClaire, @GlamourMag, @Agent_M, and myself, of course
.
You should be taking into account the ad sales numbers for print and online, and of course the changing face of how people read media (on iPhones and BlacKBerry’s, not actual print) to consider why 140 character headlines are useful.
Oh, you should also follow @EmilyKostic. She’s an award winning college journalist who is using blogging, social media, and multimedia in fantastic ways.
Thanks for the input! I know that journalism is heading in that direction, but as a girl who always dreamed of seeing her name in print, it’s a bit hard to swallow at times. Great points though, I forgot about BlackBerry’s and such, 140 character headlines would be perfect for that. I will definitely be following EmilyKostic as well!