Twitter: Like it or Lump it? Matt White

Twitter was created in 2006 by Jack Dorsey. This interesting social network website is based on the notion of constant status updates containing no more than 140 characters. Since its creation, it has expanded on a global scale. Today it attracts more than 14 million people a day in the U.S alone. Like many other forms of social media, Twitter has integrated itself into the journalism world. Many of today's online news sites allow for sharing of articles as well as feedback via Twitter. The following will examine both the positives and the negatives of Twitter in terms of the way it's currently being used for journalistic purposes. This will not examine the positives and negatives for the average user.

The positives of Twitter, although sometimes hard to find, are there. First, the constant updates provide users with a medium that is much often faster than the news industry itself. Each team in the NHL, for instance, has a Twitter fed that is constantly being updated with player injuries, game announcements, and more, often before it has been reported elsewhere online, or in print. Another positive of Twitter is the multitude of short article summaries accompanied by a quick link. Hundreds of headlines with attached links can easily be found, eliminating the need for aimless wandering. Lastly, Twitter provides the public with information that may not be easily, if at all, accessible elsewhere. A good example of this is the FBI press feed. Here, users are given the latest on the FBI's actions, information that is not all that easy to acquire elsewhere.

The negatives of Twitter seem to go hand in hand with the positives. By far the largest negative aspect of Twitter is the high possibility of inaccurate information. Because there are so many updates so often, the chances for inaccuracy are extremely high. Gordon Lightfoot's death being reported on Twitter is probably the best and most recent example of how far inaccurate information can really go. The second biggest negative of Twitter is the over abundance of useless information that you have to sift through to get to the good stuff. Lastly, the use of hash tags and the poor search capabilities are far too confusing and time consuming to be considered productive at this point.

When it comes to Twitter being used by news organizations, the debate is pretty well split down the middle.

Those who are in favour of Twitter's use by news sites often draw attention to the fact that this provides a much needed outlet for the public to voice their thoughts and feelings on the subject at hand. This and the instant sharing capabilities are the two main reasons people favour Twitter's use in journalism.

As usual, the positives do not come without the negatives. When it comes to the public being able to weigh-in on the news, there are those out there who feel this is more of a distraction than a positive. Who cares what Joe citizen has to say on White House political stances? Is this person even qualified to be giving relevant feedback on such issues? Doubtful. Does this person really know what they're talking about? Maybe, but unlikely. If they had something important to say, it would be from a more credible source than Twitter, right?

For another view on the subject, Nancy Gordy's blog gives a look not only at Twitter, but other social media sites and the effect they've had on journalism.

Image by Matt Hamm on flickr