Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Twitter: Yay or Nay?
So Twitter. A shorter, extremely condensed method of blogging. Is it really necessary to summarize your thoughts in 140 characters or less? What's next? People eliminate face to face interaction completely and communication only through online programs? I know my example is exaggerated, but you get the point. We have text messaging, facebook, myspace, blogs, and dozens of other social networking sites. Not to mention instant messaging and google chat.
Professor Dan Kennedy described Twitter as a "micro-blogging platform" in his presentation Monday, which is an accurate characterization of the chatting. It's blogging simplified and less formal. Could it be considered tasteless using casual Twitter lingo to give a play by play of an individual's funeral? Yes.
This may seem a little harsh, but I think the idea behind Twitter is a bit....obsessive. Yeah, maybe information can be streamed and shared immediately. So, everytime something happens in the world people are going to run to their computers or engage in Twitter conversations with complete strangers on their phones?
Furthermore, I wouldn't consider Twitter a substantial or reliable resource for breaking news. As long as people understand Twitter is a forum for conversation, it's not a problem. But, I don't see the connection between Twitter news feeds and journalism.
The recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai were twittered about alot. I'm uncertain of the value of the "tweets" because who are they coming from and what is the purpose of conversing through Twitter? Is it to share cold hard facts and straight forward information or analyze news with one another? The problem is that ordinary citizens and journalists can't be separated on Twitter.