Twitter earns its journalism stripes in Parliament
|
Television and radio news programs used to boast, with some legitimacy, that they were the definitive sources for news “first”; if a story was breaking, they were your best bet for timely and accurate reporting. Of course, the primary determinant of just who is “first” with the news is the delay caused by an outlet’s production requirements — stories need to be written and filed, newspapers need to be printed and distributed, television needs to be shot and edited, etc. It doesn’t matter how many reporters there are on the ground, it’s the lines of communication between reporter and news consumer that matter. Last night, as the coalition’s ETS party room meeting stretched into its eighth hour, there were hordes of people around Australia desperate to know the outcome of their ETS debate along with the status of Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership. But where to turn? The newspapers were 18 hours old and the new ones six hours away, there were no up-to-date stories on the papers’ websites, and there was nothing on the telly for non-cable subscribers (after 7.30 Report finished). Thank goodness for Twitter. Throughout last night’s political drama and excitement, on Twitter via iPhone and BlackBerry from the halls of APH, were several of the nation’s leading mainstream media political journalists tapping away at their micro keyboards to ensure that the Twitterverse was the most informed cohort of political observers in Australia. Thanks to Twitter and those social media-savvy journos, thousands upon thousands of Australians learned about the goings-on in the opposition party room literally hours before anyone else, making (for a short while at least) traditional news channels redundant. And not only were these front-line political journalists talking directly in real time to news consumers without any editorial filter, the consumers were talking back and the journos were listening; there was a conversation instead of a monologue. It’s turning into a bit of a cliche for those of us who endlessly spruik the benefits of well-used social media, but the genuine bi-directionality of the communication on display last night is a shining example of how journalism and media are changing, no matter how much some industry dinosaurs wish it wasn’t. This is the kind of interaction that builds a relationship and trust between news brand and news consumer, and ultimately makes the consumer more willing to pay for the brand. As one Twitterer said this morning: “somewhat oddly I think I’d more likely pay for the tweets of some journos than for the paper they write for.” Something to chew on for those large media organisations wondering how to convince their consumers to hand over cash for content. Of course, the considered analysis of last night’s events will be delivered to consumers today via more traditional news channels and with the necessary time delay, and it is in this space that traditional news outlets will continue to serve an extremely useful purpose. But like it or not, Twitter and other social media, along with their users, are now an integral part of the portfolio of sources and mediums that inform a well-rounded news consumer and there’s not much anybody can do about it. |
|
|
|
13 Comments
Well said. The coverage on Twitter from some of Australia’s leading political journos has been second to none.
Well said, though it’s also worth noting that unconfirmed reports that Wilson Tuckey had called a spill during *yesterday’s* meeting spread like wildfire on Twitter at around 5:00pm. We’ll have to make sure we harness the power of the echo chamber for good…
It’s great to hear from journos. The readers? Not always.
It is far too easy for supposedly well-informed people to ignore the actual news and analysis if they “already know everything” from 500 people’s ill-considered 140-character brainfarts.
Strong voices are needed to help make sense of the rabble. 90% of everything is crap.
So, given the quality of content and the value of bidirectional dialogue, do you think it’s a good idea to pay a subscription fee to follow someone on Twitter?
No, I don’t. I quoted that person’s thought as an indicator of the sort of value he (and others) felt they were getting from following those journos’ Twitter feeds.
I didn’t stay up. Simply because I thought it was too much of a chronicle of a death foretold.
Oh hell you don’t want to listen to what that guy had to say (or tweet)!!
To be honest I made it more of a comment of where I see potential $ value in the media. The tweets the press gallery were providing were unique and required them actually being there. For me, it felt like I was getting a service for free, as opposed to 95% of what is in online MSM sites, which is repetitive, filtered and regurgitated press releases, and worth bugger all.
I could see Murdoch looking at, once the org goes behind the paywall, including in the subscription access to the plethora of tweet accounts of the news.ltd journos (I’d say all they would need is to make their accounts restricted, and opened to you to follow only once subscription has occured - or something, I am sure some boffins could work it out).
The good thing about such a service is it would put an onus on the journos to tweet. The negative though would be to lose the “informal” nature of their tweets at the moment - eg what they tweet during QANDA and QT, or even just about what they’re doing that night for dinner (and the sense that you can have nice friendly banter with them). It wold not work if suddnely there was an onus on them to respond to everyone or none… some balance surely though could be found.
So I am not really wanting them to go behind a paywall, but just that I could see the possibility of it happening, and were it to I feel you would actually be getting something for the money that you couldn’t get elsewhere (eg many free blogs give much better analysis of events than do the MSM).
I was as glued to Twitter as anyone yesterday, there is no way that traditional media could have held that kind of attention and given the speed of updates. But lets not go too far overboard. I’d estimate that combining the #spill #iamtheleader #turnbull and similar tags, there was probably dozens of people involved in making tweets, and maybe a few hundred reading. You can add to that a few journos who don’t need to add tags to get attention.
Certainly for a few hundred of the daggiest voyeurs of political porn in the country (which I’d proudly name myself one of), the Twitter feed was the best thing since the Internet. But lets not get to excited that some journos responded to someones tweet. Its all very well to have a two way conversation, but the fact that this was possible demonstrates that the audience, however excited they were, was pretty small. You couldn’t have a two way conversation with any decently sized audience.
For all the excitement, what did we gain by the second to second flow of information? If you even just waited till Lateline came on, you got all the same information as Twitter drip fed over many hours, but in a coherent form, and you even got to see Annabell.
So yes, Twitter is here to stay and will be a valuable addition to the array of media sources, but I suspect its a very small number of us political nerds who notice or care. The rest of the country will probably hear about the Twittersplosion that occurred in a cringe-worthy SMH or Oz article, but that’s about it. If this kind of Twitter event goes even remotely mainstream, there won’t be a two way conversation and the dross will far outway the good, making the whole thing unworkable.
Agreed. And yes it is a niche market.
Bogdanovist - you may be right, but I don’t give a rat’s scarily disproportionate gonads’. Last night I laughed. I cried. Some wee came out. The atmosphere on twitter was absolutely electric and I, a humble nobody, felt part of a major media and political phenomenon in a way I have never experienced before.
Surely there can be no greater expression of democracy than to engage directly with politicians and the press in real time - and use that absolute privilege to retweet the undeniable reality that Kevin Andrews is a dead-set cock.
I agree with cutting out the middlemen, but how about going further and getting the tweets directly from the party room. No double handling by a journalist, even faster and no encapsulated agenda.
Really. No agenda in tweets direct from the party room?
Are you new in town?
Watch any other event like the death of Michael Jackson for your proof of that.
I can see the live stream of political events like this continuing to be useful or entertaining for a niche audience of political journalists and tragics. I wouldn’t expect it to be a mass market thing. The mass market, if it’s interested in politics at all, is still just going to want the coherent summary.
What I can see, though, is that niche audience of tragics growing as the political process — or at least the insiders’ commentary on the political process — becomes more accessible.
I imagine it’d be similar to the day trader phenomenon on the stock market. Previously, unless you had the time to physically front up at the bourses and get the latest gossip, you’d have to rely on your stockbroker. Now, anyone can fire up a web browser, a stock trading service and live chat.
In both cases, the dynamic is going to change significantly. Somehow.