Just before the start of spring term, a friend and colleague in journalism sent an e-mail message to our department: Technology had changed, she wrote; perhaps our reporting curriculum should change with it. She planned to teach with a focus on live blogging and Twitter, and suggested that those students not particularly interested in using the new technology should be tracked into the other reporting class.
That is, my reporting class—one in which we emphatically would not use Twitter.
For those not in the know, Twitter is a microblogging service that allows members to report on what they're seeing, thinking, and feeling by posting comments that are limited to just 140 characters each. You can subscribe to someone's Twitter feed and receive what are called "tweets"—brief bits of information like "Sat through another of Prof. Hart's interminable lectures on the glories of literary nonfiction."
With its laughable name that itself suggests foolishness, Twitter has become the butt of media jokes. Doonesbury's Garry Trudeau created several comic strips mocking the inherent narcissism of its users and its inadequacy as a reporting tool. Earlier this year, Slate offered up a mockumentary of a start-up "nanoblogging" company called Flutter that allows users only 40 characters. "It just takes too long to compose a message with 140 characters," one entrepreneur says on the film, "and then you start getting bombarded by a few Tweets, and it's like hundreds of characters that you have to read."
Not everyone is laughing, though.
A few months ago, I sat across a cafe table from a local newspaper editor and watched the bewilderment on his face as he told me how the Internet has altered print journalism at his own paper. Recently some of its readers complained when they heard through word of mouth about a car accident in town but couldn't find updates on the newspaper's Web site. "We told them they had to wait until we'd investigated and could post a full report," he said, "and they demanded to know why we couldn't just Twitter the information right then." The answer, of course, is that 140 characters gives reporters just enough room to note who, what, where, why, and how in the most basic terms. That may be news, but it's not a news story.
"We're talking about laying people off," the editor added, "but hiring a full-time Internet reporter. And that person will Twitter."
With this new form of journalism to consider, I attended a lecture on "The Incredible Shrinking Newsroom" given by Martin Baron, editor of The Boston Globe. I sat sandwiched between two journalism students, both of them busily texting from their cellphones. In front of me sat another young man, bent over his laptop. I looked around and spotted even more students hunched over computers, wielding cellphones, or ready with their BlackBerrys, thumbs poised, waiting for Baron to begin his lecture. (They reminded me of a science teacher I had in high school, a man who told his students with some delight that humans were destined to evolve into an egg shape with one finger.)
The wistful editor noted how, in January 2007, he was forced to shut down all of the Globe's foreign bureaus because of declining revenue. Did the busily typing students, staring at their screens, hear the sorrow in Baron's voice as he recounted those closings, calling them "a signal of diminished ambitions"? Did those students notice the pain, fear, and indignation on the faces of their fellow audience members —older community members who had biked across town to hear the lecture, as well as 21-year-olds poised to graduate with dreams of careers in newspaper journalism? Or were they too busy Twittering?
Already, I can imagine some of my more technologically savvy friends chastising me—"Oh, Melissa, you're such an essayist." It's true: I tend to sit on a subject for a while, ruminating on it before disseminating my perspective. "You're like a cow chewing its cud," a friend once told me. "Reporters just take notes, then write the story."
To those who Twitter, the reporter who investigates a story before offering it to the public must also seem tediously ruminant. On Twitter, the notes become the story, devoid of even five minutes of reflection on the writer's way to the computer. I can see that there are times —an airplane landing in the Hudson, a presidential election in Iran—when this type of impromptu journalism becomes a necessity, and an exciting one at that. Luckily, reporters still exist to make sense of information bytes and expand upon them for readers—but for how much longer?
I worry that microblogging cheats my students out of their trump card: a mindful attention to the subject in front of them, so that they can capture its sights and sounds, its smells and tactile qualities, to share with readers. How can Twittering stories from laptops and phones possibly replace the attentive journalist who tucks a digital recorder artfully under a notepad, pencil behind one ear, and gives full attention to the subject at hand?
After Baron's lecture, I read the students' tweets. They commented on Baron's backward-looking pessimism; they noted the irony of the Globe's thriving Web site. Good, useful information—but with a lot of gaps. No one noted how the editor stood small at the podium, as if defeated, delivering what was supposed to be a rousing call to action in a voice diminished by desperation—the reason being, we found out later, the New York Times Company's threats that morning to shut down the Globe unless pay cuts went into effect immediately.
I read several tweets that focused on Baron's advice to "tell revealing stories in new ways and with dazzling new tools"—but none that described the audience, none that included observations about the hopeful young reporters who read their fate in the accounts of disappearing daily newspapers. There were no posts about the elderly man who stood up at the microphone after Baron's lecture to argue fiercely for the viability of tangible news.
I went home after the lecture and—hypocritically, I admit—updated my Facebook status and my blog to declare how much I despise Twitter. My friend in the journalism department responded by forwarding me an e-mail message she'd sent to her reporting class, showing how Twitter serves as a source of links to longer news stories. I found myself conceding this unexpected usefulness for microblogging as a source for links to complete New York Times articles on art and films, and as a venue for alerts from Powell's Books regarding upcoming sales.
Still, as a method for reporting the news, Twitter strikes me as ridiculous. It begs the question: What is news? Is it a stark factual sentence, or a well-crafted story steeped in sensory details, heavily dependent on the reporter's presence at the scene?
Arguing the latter, I sent my reporting students out to complete a digital-photo scavenger hunt on their beat—a three-block radius in Springfield, Ore. I instructed them to take public transportation, then find and photograph a list of 20 signs, shops, and landmarks. They were also to interview two strangers and ask them what they liked and disliked about their community. In this way, the students would learn firsthand about a new place and its people in order to produce engaging, thoroughly reported articles.
I worried that they'd find the assignment silly, irrelevant in this technological age. But no one countered my scavenger hunt with, "Can't we just research the community on the Internet?" Instead, with surprising good will on a rainy morning, the students set off in pairs to photograph rabbit carcasses hanging in a butcher shop, murals, graffiti, and witty signage in front of the new, controversial strip club. They interviewed strangers and reported back to me as we headed back an hour later to sit around a table in a classroom sans computers.
"I'm going back to the butcher shop to interview the owner," one young man told us, his eyes glowing. "Besides rabbit, he sells rattlesnake and alligator meat. Who buys that stuff?" Another student decided to devote the term to immersion journalism, inspired by a sign he'd seen outside a local strip club that day: "It said, 'We've got your stimulus package right here,'" he told us. "I want to investigate why these clubs thrive financially in the middle of a recession." The group continued to discuss their story ideas, and I left class that day excited to read their feature articles and profiles, reported by students eager to immerse themselves in learning about butcher shops and gun stores and diners.
If it's true that writers read in the genres they most enjoy crafting, then give me a painstakingly crafted investigative piece any day—a provocative story that challenges the reader to accompany the reporter on a path from question to revelation. Give me The Boston Globe's Michael Paulson and his incisive coverage of the election of the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church. Give me Sonia Nazario's heartbreaking series on a Honduran boy's illegal journey to the United States, printed in the Los Angeles Times.
Likely I'm being woefully short-sighted in my response to reporting via Twitter. Perhaps a news article really can be crafted, haikulike, in 140 characters.
My hat is off to those who can do it. I just don't want to read it.
Comments
1. craigburdett - July 27, 2009 at 01:36 pm
I offer no defense of Twitter, but Twitter is only a sign of the 30-second attention span crafted by broadcast television in the past 30 years. If viewers can't 'get it' in 30 seconds, most just tune out. It's sad, but Walter Cronkite could probably not get a job today. And I thoroughly enjoy a well-researched investigative piece. Give me 10,000 well-written words any day. Unfortunately, the majority of 'news' reporting that people consume today is little more than a nationally-televised Tweet. Flip to (insert news channel acronym here) and it's all infotainment. Far too many (biased) talking heads ensuring that 'all sides' of a news item are covered. I'm not excluding any of them: they all pander to popular culture to maintain ratings. Not report the news. And print? It's dead. Let it go. The financial and environmental costs to produce a print newspaper with a one-day lifespan are far too great: from harvesting/recycling to delivery. Nasty and unprofitable and by the time it's delivered it's out of date. If a news reporter wants to keep his or her job she should adjust to the new content-delivery format and start tweeting. Or start on that novel... We can bemoan it all we want, but we have exactly the news consumer we produced.
2. mricher - July 27, 2009 at 02:51 pm
It seems to me that perhaps you are missing the point about twitter and web 2.0. The Trouble with Journalism, it could be also written, is that it cannot replace Twitter. They are just different. If Paul Revere road through the night to signal people, then certainly a journalist doing an extensive research on an article for publication cannot substitute for that kind of communication. I think Twitter, putting aside the frivolous and mundane postings, can serve the role of Paul Revere in terms of immediacy. The other point has to do with the power of crowdsourcing --- journalists and photojournalists cannot be everywhere. Every day people now can shoot video easily, even with an iPhone 3GS. The eyes of the world, so to speak, is a different power than the experts. So to me how do you preserve what is valuable about the "old" and integrate it with the new so the two can co-exist in a beneficial way? The problem is newspapers have adapted slowly to economic realities so I am concerned they no longer have the means to generate sufficient revenue with the current business models. Add to that the reality that journalists often work for large media concerns that have corporate/financial and political interests. Many younger people do not consider newspapers good sources of information these days because of the bias they have ... there is often a tendency not to dig deep and examine important questions and stories, but just to parrot what politicians, right-wing pundits, handlers, and lobbyists say. When you still find a well-written piece of journalistic effort such as a series of articles The Washington Post ran on AIG after the financial crisis, yes indeed, twitter is no substitute for that.
3. cronknews - July 27, 2009 at 03:55 pm
Is this new technology any different from a student leafing through a paper copy of the New York Times, reading the headlines, and occasionally clicking her eyes down to an article that sounds particularly interesting? She might look more sophisticated in the coffee shot, but the behavior is the same. ~CronkNews.com
4. sp_sullivan - July 27, 2009 at 05:13 pm
Why is it that every discussion about new media conventions has to be to the effect of "Twitter: Yes or No?" And why is it that when we confront a Web-based reporting tool we don't understand, we write it off as an affront to the good-ol'-days values in journalism that are often just an ideallized version of the past? I had a professor who made us use Twitter for a journalism class, and I made fun of him relentlessly for it. Now, I'm twittering with my foot in my mouth because it's proven to be a great reporting tool. When used right, it's not about narcissism, or the proliferation of unverified information; it's about engagement. As a campus beat blogger, I've posted to Twitter a number of times saying something like "Hey, I just found out [X], does anybody know anything else about this?" and been given important information from followers that made its way into longform news stories or blog posts. So please don't tell me it's unwise to use a tool that helps me do my job better because you don't understand it. I'm no good with an SLR, but that doesn't mean I think photographers are stupid. As a journalism professor, you should be teaching your students to tell a story in the most effective way possible. The best j-students I know haven't lost the GOYA-KOD attitude that makes a good reporter; they just do their homework online before heading out the door.
5. tbarkow - July 27, 2009 at 05:24 pm
First, it would be helpful if you read up on process journalism, or visited a modern online newsroom. Let's put aside our pining about how the smoky, sexist newsrooms of the past were so awesome. It's time, already, to move on. Admittedly, I haven't worked in digital journalism for 10 years now, but even I, aged codger that I am, can't even believe what you're teaching your students. Go talk to the butcher? That is in no way a news story. You say it yourself, these are "profiles" and "features". Not news. News is fast. And online, news moves as fast. I think you'd be surprised at how great the pressure is when the competition can rewrite a press release, publish it, and "beat" you to a story. Doesn't matter that your story was reported, or that it read better. You still got beat, and that's all most readers and management care about. That is the harsh reality of the online news business today. As for how Twitter fits into this, well, that's still to be determined. But here's a quick tip: Each tweet might be limited to 140 characters, but you are free to create as many tweets as you want/need. So, you can actually craft any story you like, you're just going to have to hit the return key more than once. It's a conversation this time around. If you want to sit on the sidelines and ruminate, that's cool, but don't dog the ones who dive headfirst into the game.
6. jennamcjenna - July 27, 2009 at 06:06 pm
Wow. This article (which I was linked to via Twitter) shows a woeful misunderstanding of the role of Twitter and other microblogging sites. They're not meant to simply replace journalism; they're meant as their own KIND of journalism, a space where professionals and amateurs alike can gather and parse a stream of links, updates, and ideas about a topic, event, or article. Anyone who thinks Twitter will replace journalism is missing the point: journalism itself is something more than a profession. It's a mode of existence, and it's no longer only the domain of those paid to report on the news.
7. lisarosenthal - July 27, 2009 at 06:41 pm
It took me a few minutes to register for this site to comment on this and it seems that several others have now beaten me to the punch. (That's the internet for you!) So I guess I will take it as my role to belabor the point. This essay is very silly. You're such an essayist! ("Essayist" means "old person who has lots of opinions on topics they know very little about, right?") You write "It begs the question: What is news? Is it a stark factual sentence, or a well-crafted story steeped in sensory details, heavily dependent on the reporter's presence at the scene?" I won't get into the misuse of "begs the question." However, the ANSWER to the question should be obvious. BOTH "a stark factual sentence" and "a well-crafted story steeped in sensory details" are news. Duh. Who on earth would think that a "stark factual sentence" isn't news-- if it's newsworthy? Twitter can't and shouldn't supplant longer-form news. I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Twitter has its uses, it has its flaws, and it suggests a potential for uses that are not yet realized. Anyone who had actually used it (instead of relying on hard-hitting Doonesbury news items for information) would know all of these things. The same goes for blogs or whatever the latest internet bogeyman may be. A news organization's job is not to employ journalists. It is not to keep printing presses in business. It is not keep idiots like Maureen Dowd and Tom Friedman atop their thrones. It is not to humor nostalgia. A news organization's job is to deliver news. The internet exists. News organizations that refuse to cope with this reality should not be in the news business. We are not going back to the days of All the President's Men. (The coddled Ivy League prettyboys of today's Washington Post would be more likely to help with the cover up than break a story like Watergate anyway.) The fact is that most of my contemporaries and I consume far more news than our parents ever did. (My parents are journalists and read three newspapers a day.) We consume news all day long, in the form of blogs, Twitter, the official websites of news organizations, and wherever else. We read the news on our laptops, iPhones, whatever. Sometimes we pick up a newspaper while waiting in line at a cafe. The point is that we're informed and we are consuming news. The fact that newspapers are failing is not because of the internet, but because of journalists who are way too eager to preserve a status quo that isn't really that great. I'm not even going to get into what a disservice you're doing to your students by refusing to teach them about the world they live in now. I'm just glad you don't teach medicine. (By the way, I found this via Twitter.)
8. dennisw - July 27, 2009 at 08:10 pm
Twitter should be used as the media to draw attention to your original news and articles (Links). Don't use it a the media to publish your articles.
9. bradleyfikes - July 27, 2009 at 08:25 pm
Ridiculing something new is always easier than taking the mental energy and effort to understand it. Among other things, Twitter can be a constantly updated feed of what's going on in your beat or location. A police scanner, to use one analogy I've heard. But you only get out of Twitter what you put into it. If you mindlessly follow people who spout inanities, that's you're fault, not Twitters. Take some care and planning about who you want to follow. For example I maintain two accounts, one for personal use, /bradleyfikes and one for my reporting, /sandiegoscience. Two minor instances when Twitter helped me find a story: (1) I saw Tony Hawk, the skateboarder who is local to our area, Twittering from the White House on Fathers' Day. We ran a story. (2) An animal shelter had an unusually large number of kittens that needed temporary homes -- 60. The shelter was so full the kittens could not be admitted. I saw that Twittered from a local businesswoman. Yes, these are not earthshaking stories, but I found them in just a few weeks of observation. I'm still looking for more sources as I hone my eye for what's news. And every day I see links to breaking news items in my areas of interest posted on my Twitter feed. Ms. Hart did a real dissservice to her students and readers. If she had spent as much time learning about how to use Twitter as in constructing strawmen, we'd all be much better off.
10. stevemtzn - July 28, 2009 at 11:34 am
I too think you're missing the advantages afforded by Twitter and other microblogging services. Here's a good example from my hometown newspaper, The Missoulian: their reporters twitter that a treasured local trout stream was involved in a possible deisel spill and immediately they've got my attention. Later they twitter that the spill was avoided and updated their breaking news page: http://bit.ly/15b9rW The following day I actually looked forward to reading my copy of the print edition so I could get more details: http://bit.ly/h4ozB To summarize, what you're missing here is that microblogging functions to actively engage the audience in the news that's happening in real time. I do believe it can be used to increase loyalty in readers. That's something small dailys desperately need.
11. marka - July 28, 2009 at 05:42 pm
Hmmm ... "I think Twitter, putting aside the frivolous and mundane postings, can serve the role of Paul Revere in terms of immediacy." Is what is 'tweeted' the stuff of Paul Revere's ride? Some is ... but most isn't. That's what I got from the article. That and the fact that 'journalist's' ought to get some of their 'information' themselves, rather than relying on secondary, tertiary, ... whatever sources obtained electronically. And that in order to foster gathering information oneself, a teacher ought to have some lessons with students actually getting out of the classroom, away from the internet, and out into the 'real' world of living, breathing, life forms. .. Sure, Twitter can be used appropriately as a tool, but as with any new gadget, plenty of folks rap themselves around the tool & play with it, rather than use the tool in aid of purposeful work. Nothing wrong with play, per se, just don't call all 'reports' on it 'journalism.' Of course, much of what passes for 'journalism' nowadays is akin to the 'yellow' journalism of the past -- sensationalism over thoughtful content. Amazing to me how quickly folks want to speed up communication among the 'hive' -- as if we all need to know what everyone else is doing all the time. Some get energy from all that activity -- and some useful information is transmitted -- but it still reminds me of the Borg, or the Matrix, or ... ?
12. bismith - July 28, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Understand the concept; real-time journalism is democratizing, and used by trained media is a perfect tool for engaging the audience. Somehow, I managed to make my point above without using more than 140 characters.
13. joeschuster - July 29, 2009 at 08:11 am
So many of the comments so far are on the money: I started working as a stringer in the days when you still phoned in your stories and read them to an editor and I think Twitter is a great tool: a way to find sources, a way to get the quick details out, a way to draw people to stories. It's only part of what a journalist can do/use today. But I have two quick additional comments: 1. What kind of assignment tells students merely to ask how people feel about their neighborhood? Telling them to go out and find a story: great, as that can help them learn what a story is--but to send them out with such a thin assignment? 2. A news operation hiring today is more likely going to hire the students from the other class.
14. mirttenk - July 29, 2009 at 10:14 am
See a student perspective on this in an article published in the Clemson University Tiger student newspaper April 2009, "The Twouble with Twitter" http://tr.im/uAER
15. ougrad1764 - July 29, 2009 at 10:45 am
Melissa, you really missed a golden opportunity to provide a balanced, nuanced analysis on the current state of new and old media journalism. Instead, you, as others have stated, took the easy route, choosing to criticize and join-in on the ridicule of yet-another-new-technology. Instead of offering the depth of insight traditional journalism can afford us reader, your argument goes little beyond those who proclaim Twitter as the death of journalism. In effect, both sides (your side and the "Death to Old Media!" side) are only yelling at one another, while the rest of us DO take the time to weigh our options and see them, not as opposites vying for dominance, but as complimentary tools that help us to capture, disseminate, interpret, and communicate about the world around us. I think the example about The Missoulian newspaper reporter following Twitter to get scoops and updates on the news is terrific example of how these two forms of media work together so well. Nobody with half a brain has ever said Twitter (or whatever new technology) is the death of journalism (or whatever old technology). Such arguments should be left to the zealots. Likewise, journalists worth their salt shouldn't stoop to joining in the parade, bemoaning the new media which they see as a threat to their livelihood. Perhaps these new forms of media are a threat to the news industry as a means of publishing and distribution, but not to journalism itself. It's a shame, however that journalists continue to miss the very opportunities that define what good journalism really is -- and can be -- in their rush to get the quick story. What would've made a great balance to this story Melissa, is one about how Twitter and similar tools are being taught in J-Schools as yet-another potential means of news gathering and reporting in today's world. But, alas that one would require a journalist willing to take the time to investigate and get the bigger picture.
16. newsmuse - July 29, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Bravo, Melissa! It's always hard to defend quality against the onslaught of technology, particularly when the young generation doesn't know what it was like to experience life and communication in a different way. So thank you for having the courage to put up with criticism from those who never learned the discipline to sit down and read a news or feature story that requires an attention span of more than seconds or minutes. That said, here are great uses for Twitter. No one denies it. No means of communication is intrinsically bad. Twitter is wonderful for what it does. But it cannot -- or rather shouldn't -- replace journalism.Tragically it does, because only $ speaks. All of you who deny that are fooling yourselves - or pretending to.
17. jbs054 - July 29, 2009 at 02:01 pm
There seems to be a misunderstanding in what Ms. Hart was saying in her essay, based on what I'm reading in the objections to it. She didn't say that Twitter wasn't a useful tool for compiling information or for research, she merely said that it fails in disseminating that information in a cogent, cohesive fashion. I agree with her - I wouldn't want to read a news story in 140 character bursts. One commenter actually thinks that readers will wend their way through a cloud of half sentences and annoying abbreviations to get the detail they want."But here's a quick tip: Each tweet might be limited to 140 characters, but you are free to create as many tweets as you want/need. " Ouch! This is an essay about the collapse of quality journalism - not an "analysis on the current state of new and old media journalism." The person who wrote that is confusing opinion with reporting. Researching online, with Twitter, email or Google, can never come close to the experiential information gleaned from a face-to-face meeting with your local butcher - I don't care how often he tweets about the rabbits for sale; it can never match going down there and taking a look at it for yourself. And that experience will find its way into the story in a way that virtual experience never can.
18. photog - July 29, 2009 at 03:08 pm
The trouble with Twitter is that it offers a false sense of truthfulness - there is no oversight in what is posted and re-tweeted ad nauseum, and can hurt rather than inform. I see a direct correlation between the rise of Twitter and its use as a tool for reporting the news and the rise of Joe the Plumber, who became a "journalist" merely because he asked an inane question and first ignored then mischaracterized the response. It's a fact (reported by trained journalists) that the very event that everyone lauds Twitter for - the coverage of Iran - that many of those tweets were faked. Who is to separate the truth from the lie? "For instance, consider the recent crisis in Iran. With an official clampdown on news flow from the country, millions of people switched to Twitter to get the latest on the crisis. Unfortunately, a large percentage of those thousands of daily tweets from Iran were, in fact, spam attacks. Spammers, whose aim was merely to capitalise on users' interest in reading tweets about Iran, set up false accounts and spread misinformation about the goings on in Tehran. Some of these fake Twitter accounts also had links that took unsuspecting visitors to phishing sites." http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_fake-profiles-spam-threaten-to-overrun-twitter_1272834 In any case, Twitter is destined for the dustbin, as 60% of their new users don't return a month later. Again, reported on by paid, trained Journalists. http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/sci-tech/16-twitter-users-not-sticking-around-nielsen-hs-12
19. dhaugen612 - July 30, 2009 at 04:41 pm
Many young journalists spend too much time with their heads down, furiously trying to take note of every word while failing to pay attention to the broader picture. What difference does it make if the technology in their hands is a cell phone or a pencil and notepad? As a pre-Twitter journalism student, I can recall covering events or conducting interviews in which I hardly looked up from my notepad at all. It takes time to grow comfortable with the process and reach a level where you can confidently listen and converse instead of franticly transcribe. One advantage Twitter presents over pen and paper: A journalist can instantly share those notes with their audience, who in return can share insights and resources that may help improve the story that's eventually published in the paper or website.
20. vincentnero - July 30, 2009 at 05:01 pm
For the record, I would have never read this article if it weren't for the link posted in a friend's tweet. And that is my argument in 140.
21. scotslady - August 03, 2009 at 12:39 am
Give me a break. The author wasn't attacking "Journalism 2.0", she was questioning the validity of a medium that seems to be primarily a resource for photos of Demi Moore's ass.
22. melissah - August 03, 2009 at 05:51 pm
<Comment removed by moderator>
23. melissah - August 03, 2009 at 05:53 pm
I'm grateful to all who took the time to comment on my essay. It's interesting to note that after I wrote this piece three months ago, I taught a class on the use of Twitter and similar Web 2.0 technologies, to supplement my students' reporting for our local newspaper. One of my juniors summed up the general classroom feeling about Twitter, saying, "I really hate it, but I see that it's necessary." I agree with those who note that we must, as journalists and professors, embrace these new technologies. I myself have a Twitter account, as well as a Facebook account, and I find both to be effective tools for marketing and information gathering. But mine is a subjective essay, not an objective article, and my point is that--as an essayist and an author--I hope to teach my students the art of in-depth reporting and thoughtful observation and not just the crafting of news-bytes. Many of my students saw their first feature articles in print last term after weeks of reporting and photography, and many let families and friends know of their publication via Twitter . . . at my suggestion.
24. kegill - August 03, 2009 at 09:36 pm
Melissa, you wrote this *three months* ago? And it's only now being published? I am boggled. I fully integrated Twitter into my spring quarter digital journalism class. My students shared their perspectives at the end of the quarter: http://com466.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/student-reflections-on-twitter/ It is not clear from your introduction if this was "reporting 101" or feature writing. I'd argue that Twitter belongs in the former but not the later. Regarding your claim and question: "Still, as a method for reporting the news, Twitter strikes me as ridiculous. It begs the question: What is news? Is it a stark factual sentence, or a well-crafted story steeped in sensory details, heavily dependent on the reporter's presence at the scene?" Twitter is not ridiculous for reporting real-time news. Please recall at the San Diego NPR affiliate used Twitter to provide wildfire related information in 2007, information that could not have easily been reported any other way. So yes, sometimes news is a stark sentence. Sometimes it is a breaking investigatory story. Why privilege one over the other? The bigger issue facing regional newspapers, in my opinion, is relevancy, not whether or how to use Twitter as part of a reporting schema. See my quick-and-dirty analysis of "local" news in the Sunday Seattle Times: http://wiredpen.com/2009/08/02/a-broken-newspaper-model/ Finally, as joeschuster noted, we have a responsibility to our students to help prepare them for the business climate that is, not the one we wish still existed.
25. kegill - August 03, 2009 at 09:37 pm
Gack. Someone at The Chronicle Review, please ask your IT department to enable *paragraph* spacing in comments. It's not that difficult and will enhance readibility 1000-fold.
26. jeremyliebman - August 04, 2009 at 04:41 pm
"I really hate it, but I see that it's necessary." I must say, those are great words of wisdom. As a student interested in multiple aspects of journalism, it is impossible to not acknowledge Twitter. I 'tweet' daily. I follow professional accounts such as PR firm Waggener Edstrom (@WaggenerEdstrom) and social accounts such as professional basketball players Charlie Villanueva (@CV31) and Chris Bosh (@ChrisBosh) for different reasons. I follow accounts similar to Waggener Edstrom to keep up to date on trends in the public relations industry. I follow social accounts to feed my gossip fix. Although it seems unnecessary, Twitter is brilliant. It brings together crowds of business people and socialites, allowing companies, news outlets, and individuals to promote ideas, philosophies, or breaking news. The 140 characters on Twitter reach many more people than other outlets such as blogs, facebook, and other social media sites because it forces followers to see an update. Simply, there are no other major features to the website. Also, unlike blogs, Twitter is easily accessible to a mass population. Used properly, it's a great marketing tool and a necessary outlet during a time in society when social media is quickly booming.
27. sabrinawrites - August 04, 2009 at 06:42 pm
It's amazing how huffy people get while trying to defend twitter... I have to admit, I'm a journalism student who is decidedly shooting myself in the foot by not conforming to the twitter trend. It seems insane to me that anyone would want to be that connected 24-hours a day. Plus, it is so easy to get a story wrong this way because it doesn't require-doesn't allow-someone to dig deeper to find something out. Someone made the comment that twitter and journalism are different, and yet nearly everyone else has been saying that twitter is becoming an primary part of journalism and how people get their news. If twitter really is what journalism is turning into, then I'm getting into the wrong profession. And how can you be sure what is real? How do you filter out the crap? Maybe my bias is that I prefer news stories with feature qualities because it brings them to life. Simply knowing what's going on in 140 characters isn't enough for me. On a final note, I feel compelled to say that I've taken a class with Melissa (and look forward to another) and she's a fantastic teacher. Anyone who questions her ability or qualification to teach is just as judgemental and closed-minded as you claim she is being by dismissing twitter. Great teaching doesn't necessarily mean conforming to technology addiction.
28. tgrizz - August 04, 2009 at 09:51 pm
I'm a journalism student at the University of Oregon and I'm attempting to stay away from Twitter as long as possible. I feel like it has dumbed down a profession to 140 characters and now anyone can report on the news. Twitter has its usefulness, as in when a certain event occurs someone can immediately Tweet about it, but Twitter should not replace real journalism. That being said, I hope Twitter withers away like MySpace. John Mayer and Demi Moore ruined it for me.
29. bukator - November 12, 2009 at 09:52 pm
I'm a current University of Guelph student in Ontario, Canada. One of our classes is very sepcifically designed to encourage the use of Twitter. We must write a blog every week. This is not a technology program by any means. I am in Turf Management. Twitter and blogging is a good way to get information out quickly in ANY industry. Many tweets usually include a link to a story, article, video, etc. that has more substance. If used effectively, Twitter can be a great tool for writers. You could tweet about this website and link it for more traffic easily.
30. thepadrino - November 21, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Sponsored Tweets is a Twitter advertising platform Where you can make money by tweeting post try it out http://bit.ly/7G4abB