Comments on: Twitter for Reporting the News

By: Jake

Jake — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:04:52 +0000

Sure, Orson Wells did it in the 30s with War of the Worlds. A combination of faster media to spread information and way more people around to spread it makes this a bigger issue today.

Plus, the gullibility gene has been found to be dominant, meaning they are all around us, like zombies . . .

By: John E. Bredehoft (Empoprises)

John E. Bredehoft (Empoprises) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:50:47 +0000

While I'll grant that Twitter provides a way to disseminate a message quickly, the issues with rapid reporting of false items are not unique to the 21st century. Take the 1835 newspaper reports about the discovery of life on the moon. No electronic technology was used to disseminate this information, but the fact that it was a multi-part series helped to guarantee that the newspaper would benefit from an increase in readership.

Lou Hampton wonders how people could have been so gullible as to believe that story, and then concludes: "The gullibility gene, by the way, was discovered by researchers at the UCLA Medical Center in 2003. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2005."

By: Jake

Jake — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:29:43 +0000

No worries at all, I was just rechecking myself to make sure I hadn't come off as anti-citizen journalism. Your point is valid to this topic, which isn't just about Twitter.

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:57:27 +0000

Sorry Jake – no criticism intended. It was more that I was probably using your post as a chance to get on my soapbox and drone on about something completely unrelated. Sorry about that. Great content as ever Jake – thanks!

By: Jake

Jake — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:32:01 +0000

I'm also glad we have a platform for citizen journalism, and I agree that advertising skews what is reported by the major news outlets. I hope my post didn't come off as against citizen journalism.

The Web provides a great populist tool that produces awesome stuff like citizen journalism, but one side-effect to populism is it doesn't discern, leaving you to sort out the gold from the crap.

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:31:25 +0000

I think it's great that citizen journalism exists, and that the web provides such a great publishing platform for it.

The agendas pushed by the mainstream media outlets are often pretty biased. I guess my point is slightly OT compared to the one you're making – but if you look are projects like IndyMedia, ElectronicIntifada, MediaLens etc, they offer a different slant to that offered by Sky / CNN / BBC, which would never get reported on mainstream media because it would alienate advertisers, and cause a massive upset if they challenged the status quo.

Of course, there are always going to be useless rubbish posed as news, but I guess people learn to be discerning… mostly!

By: Jake

Jake — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:07:11 +0000

Agreed, journalism isn't just reporting the news, it's analysis and access to sources that Twitter can never replicate. Even longer format blogging can't hope to replicate the immediacy of Twitter.

I share your concern about spikes driving ad revenue, and somehow I doubt that we'll see the end of paparazzi and gossip rags anytime soon.

By: Jake

Jake — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:03:59 +0000

Yeah, Twitter is a great way to launch a DDOS attack. Just tweet something juicy and plausible with a shortened link and sit back while the site you targeted gets pounded by curious rubberneckers.

By: Jake

Jake — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:02:50 +0000

Hmm, that would be helpful, i.e. tracking trends based on original vs. retweeted content. Twitter (and Summize before they were acquired) never published the algorithm for trending topics.

By: Gary

Gary — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 06:12:11 +0000

News isn't a one-size-fits-all situation. The timeline is an important differentiator. The death of a celebrity is a spike, and doesn't require any in-depth understanding. Similar with a plane crash. The traditional news organisations are better suited to the challenges of reporting extended events, like an election campaign or the financial crisis.
Their problem is that, without the revenue from the 'spike' news, can they sustain the in-depth coverage ?
Personally if 'citizen journalism' can kill off the gossip sheets and paparazzi, I'm all in favour of it.

By: joel garry

joel garry — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:37:16 +0000

Twitter is good for faking a massive net attack.

By: Andrew Saunders

Andrew Saunders — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:25:55 +0000

I think if there are a significant volume of original/unique tweets about a particular event, then that lends it credibility. When Melbourne recently experienced an earthquake, I tweeted it almost immediately and then watched as many other original tweets were published. Re-tweeting on the other hand, lends no discernible credibility. Not aware of any ways to figure this out from trending services.

By: Jake

Jake — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:56:05 +0000

I saw that comes across one of my feeds today. Can't be by accident

The “Tips from Bob Woodward” sounds interesting re. confidential sources. I wonder how long Deep Throat would have stayed confidential in this era.

By: noelportugal

noelportugal — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:45:06 +0000

Google (youtube) released today http://www.youtube.com/reporterscenter a channel to teach you how to be a "citizen" reporter...maybe the tips will apply to twitter as well