The good and the bad for Twitter and journalism

(by Allan Vestal)

From the streets of Mumbai during a terrorist attack to communities across America facing uncertainty about Swine Flu, the utility of Twitter in aiding communication as situations unfold has been well established. The tool allows those impacted directly by breaking news to communicate with friends and loved ones outside – and with others on the front lines.

Twitter also has proven itself to be capable for more general social interaction, with capabilities (such as @ replies) designed to spark discussions; the brief, 140-character or less nature of tweets spurs very conversational, very granular interaction.

But can Twitter be a useful tool to news media? I would argue that the nature of journalism is quite compatible with the ideals and goals of newsrooms the world over.

Kovach and Rosenstiel tell us that “Journalism is a discipline of verification.” The profession is, in a nutshell, about getting the facts – the verified facts, that is – to audiences, as quickly as possible. The instantaneous nature of tweeting, in addition to the frequency with which many "tweeple" (Twitter users) check their friends’ feeds, is very conducive to this form of covering breaking news – namely, getting the basic facts out as soon as possible. More comprehensive coverage, which would likely not fit within the 140 character limit (or into a textual medium altogether), could follow in the form of a link to finalized news content such as articles or videos.

Such has been the practice of many news outlets, even here in mid-Missouri. Yesterday, a pipeline in Howard County, Mo. exploded, igniting a massive fire. Less than an hour after initial reports of the fire, KOMU tweeted about the incident and provided a map of the area affected. Incremental updates from the station and from the Columbia Daily Tribune poured in over the rest of the night, including links to more finalized content.

KOMU also attempted an interesting technique in its coverage: the station asked in subsequent tweets for viewer-submitted photos of the blaze. This highlights another possible use of Twitter for newsrooms: as a tool to gather (and distribute) news virally. The concept of news outlets tapping into social networking is intriguing, and could prove handy in helping journalists discover new angles to stories. On the other end, the burgeoning occurrence of re-tweeting (echoing the contents of others’ tweets) can help interesting messages from news organizations to go viral.

For all its uses, however, there are some definite drawbacks to Twitter. Namely, many news organizations are still discovering the difference between what is and what isn’t appropriate to tweet. Many thought it inappropriate when the Columbia Missourian tweeted that people were applauding at a recent talk by David Sedaris on the MU campus, for example, as this detail was probably not relevant (at least in an immediate sense) to a large segment of the Missourian’s Twitter followers. The network should, therefore, only be used to post relevant details in stories that feature a strong element of timeliness.

Another somewhat widely-used application for Twitter is as a pseudo-feed of the latest news. Organizations like The Maneater (at which I serve as Online Development Editor, in full disclosure) have mostly used the service to post links to the top story of each issue. This does work in the sense that regular – but not overly frequent – updates provide a form of informal advertisement as followers read about a featured story (and, if they so desire, click on a link to read or view more). However, using Twitter only in this respect defeats its purposes of both sparking conversation and providing instant updates.

The answer for integrating Twitter into newsrooms, then, lies somewhere in the middle of many of these approaches. News organizations must harness the varied utilities of Twitter, and use these to generate varying types of coverage based around the service.