As a news junkie, one of the places Twitter has stood out in my mind is how major events (earthquakes, plane landing in the Hudson, etc) where "first reported" on this service...if you only knew how to get that content, verify it and distribute it to interested people.
Because Twitter basically delivers information via text, I've always thought it speaks to the potential power of newspapers online. But most attempts to integrate have been ham-fisted at best, with few readers caring to interact with staff and the whole discussion happening off in some nether world the non-Twittering majority never sees.
Today, in the wake of the Buffalo plane crash, the Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) did something interesting by linking to the search term "Buffalo" over at Twitter and featuring this link right next the story on the homepage. Clicking over to Twitter revealed a well-populated stream of thoughts ("I canceled my flight due to winds" "I was going to Buf today") and other comments, links to content, etc. And this conversation was visible to all readers, regardless of their followings. While it could likely have been narrowed to make the stream even better (e.g. no Buffalo Sabres news mixed in), there was plenty to explore related to the crash.
This solves two problems:
1. It develops yet another potential way Twitter could be utilized to add value to a product without a massive investment of time and effort from the end user.
2. It creates a potential way for newspapers to develop much more relevant conversations on their sites.
While comment boards on newspaper sites are extremely active, they are victims of bomb-throwing commenters who have nothing to lose by being as vile as possible to get their points across. Twitter conversations are connected mainly back to actual, thinking people with profiles and followings they don't want to tarnish for the sake of being outrageous.
Twitter and print-pubs kind of came together in my mind today... both heading in different directions on the buzz scale... but both also in need of boosts of true relevancy in this emerging media landscape to reach their potential. In fact, Twitter -- because it is based in texted communication -- shows exactly why companies like magazines and newspapers could be so powerful in the future because they have the ability to gather, verify and edit "print" communications (which in my mind include links.) Imagine the power of a Twitter where everything you read was first, factual and relevant. Folks just might pay for something like that.
And newspapers/magazines histories show us the potential power of Twitter's broad, diverse audience to move an issue or story through society. When a source carries weight, it can speak truth to power, entertain the masses and generally serve a tremendous public good. If these two can start playing together, it might benefit everyone.
Mike Hudson
in
storytelling, the social net
|
Permalink
| Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0)
|
Strategists & Planners
Comments (0)