Can Journalism Survive Twitter?

[webfact]

STOPPAGE TIME

Can journalism survive twitter?

By Tulsathit Taptim

The Nation

One certainty is that more people will be reading this article than if I wrote it the same time last year. A lot more, probably. All that's needed is to "tweet" a link and the "followers" will take care of the rest. And if the likes of @suthichai or @jin_nt re-tweet that link, then bingo.

Other than that I don't have a clue. Positive signs continue to mix with bad ones. Twitter has been teleporting news - there's no doubt about it - but can anyone show me the money?

I did quite a good job - or I thought I did - tweet-reporting the Burapa University building collapse on Sunday night with, mind you, one eye on the Liverpool-Arsenal game. By "good job" I mean even major news websites were slower in their updates. Remarkably slower.

Websites have threatened newspapers, and while we won't be talking about the "death of news websites" any time soon, the latter has lost what used to be its biggest advantage - speed. And the main leverage of news websites as of now, accuracy, will soon be hanging by a thread. Twitter and accuracy are like when humans tried to build the first aeroplanes. Crashes are to be expected, but just wait and see.

So, what's the problem here? It should be journalists' dream come true when what Cambodian leader Hun Sen says in Phnom Penh is responded to by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva in Hua Hin in a matter of minutes, or when the finance minister is willing to answer your immediate questions online. The ingredients are everywhere and we are in a mobile kitchen. It's easier to cook, and it's easier to market.

Market it to whom? That's the catch. The audience is larger, sophisticated, has a massive appetite for news and even helps you create content. But people now have a greater right to choose. Together they made Twitter what it is, so charging them is not only improbable, but also illogical.

I'm among the "tweeting" journalists who don't know whether to laugh or cry when a fan says, "Hey, what a great job you've done. I don't even have to subscribe to SMS news service any more [let alone newspapers]." It's a bittersweet situation. I tweet, therefore I am and therefore I may die.

But you know what they say: If you don't do it, somebody else will. And there are enough "sombody elses" out there to give the public what they want. Anyone who chooses to "follow" smartly will be as informed and knowledgeable as any Time or Wall Street Journal subscriber, without having to pay a dime.

No exaggeration there. Twitter may be a great tool, but as far as news consumers go, it's a Godsend. Follow a few doctors if you are health conscious, a few preachers for spirituality, scientists or innovators to keep up with technology. People are doing just that and more, all the while taking pride in the newfound ability to enrich themselves with knowledge and information free of charge. Not only is news finding them at the speed of light, but also virtually all words of wisdom and every one-liner known to man.

Information is becoming like the air we breathe, and we can't charge anyone for air, can we? A couple of geniuses may be able to earn a few bucks packaging oxygen from the Alps and selling it, but the bottom line is, if I would never pay The Guardian or CNN for its digital content, and newspapers are thinking every day about cancelling wire service subscriptions, why should "you" pay "me" likewise?

Journalists are probably like horses just before automobiles came along. Well, "horse-riders" may be more appropriate. There were times when they were secure because few others could drive like they did. Cue cars and it was all over. Not that the riders were bad at what they did, but the new machine empowered others to do the same task of getting from Point A to Point B.

The riders had no choice but to learn to drive. It's as simple as that. Good news is all about the basic matter of adaptability, an evolutionary process that people in all walks of life have to undergo sooner or later. Bad news is - and this is more or less a myth - the journalists' comfort zone, or the tendency to resist change, is harder to break than for others. My peers know that this natural selection will be painful, but what we can't agree on is whether we want it to be quick or slow.

-- The Nation 2010-08-18

Related link:

Follow Thaivisa on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/georgebkk

[canuckamuck]

Good investigative reporting will not be wiped out by tweeters, however breaking news is what makes the tweets fascinating. But tweets are a excellent source for misinformation and damaging rumors and I think there are some potential for tweet crimes. Fake tweets cause a great deal of trouble. I hate regulation, but one can tweet with malice, and where is the victim's recourse?

[scorecard]

Good investigative reporting will not be wiped out by tweeters, however breaking news is what makes the tweets fascinating. But tweets are a excellent source for misinformation and damaging rumors and I think there are some potential for tweet crimes. Fake tweets cause a great deal of trouble. I hate regulation, but one can tweet with malice, and where is the victim's recourse?

Instant 'journalism' seems here to stay. However perhaps journalism is the wrong word. It's more like who can be first to say something / write something / get something on screen, regardless of any background research or developing any insight into what led up to the event.

We see examples of it all day every day on CNN, BBC world, Twitter etc. And it makes it difficult to get a correct perspective.

Until my early twenties there was no TV, just newspapers and a one hour nightly radio news session which usually provided multiple perspectives / interviews on each story, plus my parents taught me to always read at least two newspapers, liten to / gain multiple comment before developig you own opinion.

Copied form above and I totally agree: "But tweets are a excellent source for misinformation and damaging rumors and I think there are some potential for tweet crimes. Fake tweets cause a great deal of trouble. I hate regulation, but one can tweet with malice, and where is the victim's recourse? "

[hammered]

All news media is an excellent source for false information especially when most trust the source of the report. The best way to mislead people is to actually source it through the "independent" western news media or through "academia"

Good investigative reporting is dead if it ever really existed as news media ultimately always have an owner with an angle or vested interest. In fact unowned persoanl sites may actually improve the chance of this and reduce the amount of control that authorities, corporations and industries can exert over what is published. Maybe it is not the tweets that we need to be so suspicious of although vigilance in needed but the blind acceptance of what is in a tradional news source;)

[Freeman64]

Good investigative reporting will not be wiped out by tweeters, however breaking news is what makes the tweets fascinating. But tweets are a excellent source for misinformation and damaging rumors and I think there are some potential for tweet crimes. Fake tweets cause a great deal of trouble. I hate regulation, but one can tweet with malice, and where is the victim's recourse?

Tweets redefine messaging to 140 characters or less limiting 'news' to little more than headlines.

'Tweet crimes' are judged in the public domain therefore should not be necessary to regulate. Fake tweets would not survive for long in the minefield of public conscience.

The victim now has more agency through real time right of reply where previously (i.e. for something written in a tabloid) the right of reply was very limited and controlled by gatekeepers of the press.

The rules of journalism have changed. The Internet has created an environment of paradigmatic change for those with an interest in social responsibility theories of journalism.

Investigative reporting is still valued and valuable with the need for adaptation to new technologies now a necessity. The cream will still rise to the top. Just ask Dan Rivers.

[scorecard]

Good investigative reporting will not be wiped out by tweeters, however breaking news is what makes the tweets fascinating. But tweets are a excellent source for misinformation and damaging rumors and I think there are some potential for tweet crimes. Fake tweets cause a great deal of trouble. I hate regulation, but one can tweet with malice, and where is the victim's recourse?

Tweets redefine messaging to 140 characters or less limiting 'news' to little more than headlines.

'Tweet crimes' are judged in the public domain therefore should not be necessary to regulate. Fake tweets would not survive for long in the minefield of public conscience.

The victim now has more agency through real time right of reply where previously (i.e. for something written in a tabloid) the right of reply was very limited and controlled by gatekeepers of the press.

The rules of journalism have changed. The Internet has created an environment of paradigmatic change for those with an interest in social responsibility theories of journalism.

Investigative reporting is still valued and valuable with the need for adaptation to new technologies now a necessity. The cream will still rise to the top. Just ask Dan Rivers.

Not sure why you say: "Just ask Dan Rivers."

Would you like to share your thoughts, please.

[Freeman64]

Good investigative reporting will not be wiped out by tweeters, however breaking news is what makes the tweets fascinating. But tweets are a excellent source for misinformation and damaging rumors and I think there are some potential for tweet crimes. Fake tweets cause a great deal of trouble. I hate regulation, but one can tweet with malice, and where is the victim's recourse?

Tweets redefine messaging to 140 characters or less limiting 'news' to little more than headlines.

'Tweet crimes' are judged in the public domain therefore should not be necessary to regulate. Fake tweets would not survive for long in the minefield of public conscience.

The victim now has more agency through real time right of reply where previously (i.e. for something written in a tabloid) the right of reply was very limited and controlled by gatekeepers of the press.

The rules of journalism have changed. The Internet has created an environment of paradigmatic change for those with an interest in social responsibility theories of journalism.

Investigative reporting is still valued and valuable with the need for adaptation to new technologies now a necessity. The cream will still rise to the top. Just ask Dan Rivers.

Not sure why you say: "Just ask Dan Rivers."

Would you like to share your thoughts, please.

Sorry about the sow reply. I tried to search unsuccessfully for links to the actual twitter.

Dan Rivers and CNN recently copped a lot of flak when reporting on the recent political situation in Bangkok. He was apparently given a lot of grief from Thai netizens as well as his fair share from English language 'citizen journalists'.

From what I have read Dan Rivers has quite a bit of respect in journalistic circles and it surprised me when I read that after becoming fed up with the negative comments, tweets, facebook posts etc Dan was purported as writing a comment on his twitter to the effect of ; 'F*** the lot of you'.

I have no qualms with Dan Rivers. I just used it as an example of the use of right of reply in digital communication. I think there are is also questions over whether he actually posted the twitter himself.

There is some interesting stuff on attacks on Dan Rivers as well as others and 'fenqing' if anyone is interested. Some links below.

http://whatismatt.co...of-nationalism/

http://asiancorrespo...og/thai-fenqing

http://asia.cnet.com...31&scid=rvhm_ms

http://www.todayonli...ude-and-fatuous

http://asiancorrespo...it-blog&page=18