I didn’t actually, because I never got into it, but this is a sequel to Phil’s post.
One of the reasons why I never took it up was that it seemed like most references I came across were from “social media evangelists” going along to media events and feeling like they were in some charmed circle where they could exchange their stereotyped opinions about how good new media is while feeling superior that the old media types didn’t know. Then the old media types got into it and started a self-referential and narcissistic discourse:
Left alone in a cage with a mountain of cocaine, a lab rat will gorge itself to death. Caught up in a housing bubble, bankers will keep selling mortgage-backed securities — and amassing bonuses — until credit markets seize, companies collapse, and millions of investors lose their jobs and homes.
And news anchors and television personalities who have their own shows, Web sites, blogs and pages on Facebook.com and MySpace.com will send Twitter messages until the last follower falls into a coma.
The Internet has revolutionized society by giving anyone an instant and unfiltered outlet for self-expression. But it has also turned journalism into a year-round, ever-updated “Dear Friends and Family” Christmas newsletter. It’s tempting to dismiss Twitter fever as a passing fad, the Pokémon of the blogosphere. But it’s beginning to look more like yet another gateway drug to full-blown media narcissism.
One of the many ironies of the whole journos v. bloggers schtick is that one of the standard tropes used to trash blogs it that we’re “narcissistic”. But aren’t blogs actually about reaching out and making peer to peer connections which aren’t intermediated by some authorised professional intermediary? And who really are the narcissists in this space?
There are far too many “future of media” discussions which just trade in gossip about who’s being sacked from which big media org, and rerun the same “ideas” about “how to revive journalism” without even considering they’ve already been found wanting or without really turning a lens onto why most of the product industrial journalism (to adopt a phrase of Jason Wilson‘s) pumps out is of less and less interest?
I never saw the point of Twitter. Facebook status updates for friends and family, sure. They fill a valuable niche – giving you small, semi-random connections with people who you see infrequently, who you wouldn’t call to catch up or meet IRL very often, yet you are mildly curious about.
But twittering to all and sundry about the minutiae of one’s life? Yawn.
PS Creative Economy should pick a new metaphor. Pokemon is no fad. From Wikipedia:
I honestly have no idea what Twitter is or does – and don’t really care either. My webmunication needs are being met.
Incidentally, how BS is Dreamweaver? After blogging the easy way, this new site I have to maintain for professional reasons is driving me up the wall. Its positively byzantine.
LE – you don’t have to maintain the proper functioning of the office printer or phone system – but if you did you might struggle with that too. The trick of software sellers is to pretend that we can use their products without any knowledge or experience.
Just farm out the role to someone else is my advice.
“Just farm out the role to someone else is my advice.”
I heard that, Wbb. Who needs it.
If you see Twitter as part of a trend to cross blogging with Internet chat relay
( IRC) then it could have a future. Some young anarch’s I know have just started an encrypted chat site that is said to be quite popular. Possibly the youth look at trad blogging the way we look at the military-entertainment complex. Also Twitter seems the increasingly preferred platform for breaking news such as fires and plane wrecks. I’m not micro-blogging there yet but am maintaining an account in the hope that it will can spam and proffer encryption at some stage – that it will evolve in other words. Vanity is not the worst thing in the world is it? Ego is not a dirty word to me.
Kim, I reckon you should maybe actually try using twitter before bagging it out – this is even worse than Phil! (or you know, just say you don’t know anything about it and not bag it out)
You haven’t even used the thing and profess your disinterest, but then presume to tell us what it’s like and what it’s used for. Come now, that’s a bit rich, and furthermore what do you care if other people get their rocks off on it? Can we now expect a slew of posts explaining why you don’t use MySpace, Google API’s, certain facebooks apps, Beebo and any other web 2.0 application that [doesn't] take your fancy?
FYI, as a representative of both old and new media (as if there is a divide in most cases, beyond the product itself), I can tell you that old media types were amongst the very first on Twitter.
But then again, maybe if you had used it or researched it all, you would know this.
Btw that NYT article is a pile of steaming shit. Wtf does a rat on cocaine and mortgage securities have to do with Twitter?? The actions are nowhere near the same; one is consuming something, one is selling something and the other is typing 140 characters for free.
The internet has not turned journalism into anything, except perhaps to level the playing field somewhat). Newsletters and updates are not journalism – but yes they are part of the trade. It’s called networking, tips, relationships.
But this is all by-the-by: Do you know how many twitterers are social media experts, and how many are plumbers etc.? I didn’t think so. You read a bad op-ed, took it for gospel, echoed its main points without any of your own research and declined to actually get some primary evidence yourself…
Sounds like you could be the one cut out for a career in ‘old media’ Kim.
patrickg, I just get a bit sick of the boosterism about every new shiny thing that comes along. I don’t deny lots of folks might find Twitter useful, and it can be used in a lot of contexts outside media ones. But inevitably that’s the one meejah types talk about. I’d be much more interested in people discussing its use in everyday contexts outside their industry – whether that industry is old media or new media “evangelism”. The broader point is how dumb and stereotyped so many of the discourses about social media are, and the elision of particular interests and practices with the public interest and how people outside a small group actually use these technologies.
As an avid Twitter user, I think you’ve missed the point. The beauty of Twitter is that you decide who you follow, there’s no spam and if you find someone’s tweets inane, you simply stop following them.
I follow people from a variety of fields so in my Twitter feed are a variety of links to information that I find interesting, but would never have the time to search out.
For a different perspective I recommend you read this post by Rands.
For heavensake, the name says it all: TWIT-ter.
Yeah but Kim, the thrust of your post is that Twitter is shit and only social/media ‘phonies’ use it – you reiterated the shithouse NYT talking points rather than refuting them.
A quick scan of the smh shows the following articles about Twitter, none of which demonstrate the circle-jerk qualities you seem so convinced dominate the medium.
You didn’t link to any examples of the bad writing you profess the post to be about – frankly I doubt you looked for any. The idea of Twitter being shit was more seductive to you than any other alternative – it fitted your presumption so you didn’t bother to check.
This said, there certainly are posts written about Twitter by journalists, by PR, and by – yes – social media experts (and you know, some are really experts). Their perspective is for the industry because that’s who their readership is. Writing for a general readership they provide a different perspective (see links above).
I agree with you that a lot of writing about social media is hype and hysteria, but come on, it’s new, what do you expect. I’m sure people have – and still do – accuse you of being equally starry-eyed about blogging. It doesn’t mean they’re right.
Horses for courses man; I don’t see the need to pass judgement on every web trend with a kind of Madonna/Whore dichotomy – “This will enable the masses and free us all!”, “This is a false consciousness that will only shackle us to banality!”. Can’t a web 2.0 thing be both?
Hello mods, too much linky, comment stuck in moderation, thanks!
Aren’t blogs are about writers presenting a finished article to readers who are invited to comment – but not change – that content? Twitter is a completely different communication, not least that it is real time (walk away, and the conversation has moved on) and 2-way. When was the last time a reader of your blog wrote an article for you? One to many blogs, Twitter few to few.
Here’s a list of 100 Australian journalists on Twitter with a few editors and hasbeens thrown in
So traditional watch social and social watch traditional. We should make them kiss and make up. They’d never part then.
One interesting note is that Twitter on mobile could eventually render the web obsolete. One guy, twittering from a plane that crashed in Amsterdam a few days ago said “I’ve just been searching the ‘net for news of our plane, but can’t find anything”. Though I’m not sure how he could get anymore breaking news than being in the plane himself. Psychic hotlines perhaps?
Stuck in moderation, help!
I don’t think that’s what blogs are about, Laurel, at least not the ones I like. For me, they’re much more about being prepared to be tentative, to respond, to update, and reply. The posts themselves can be fairly dynamic as well as the comments threads.
And we frequently feature guest posts by readers and commenters.
patrickg – I released your comment… maybe try refreshing your browser?
Thanks for setting me free Mark! I really must control my desire for linking, lol.
All good things in moderation, patrickg!
I’m a big fan of twitter – it scratches a particular itch for me, but I agree that there is a lot of ‘social media expert’ wankery on it. If you look at the profiles of the most popular twitterers, they’re all apparently social media experts, gadget freaks, and so on (on the other hand, it’s wonderfully democratic to have a phenomenon that so many people can be experts at, without all that time-consuming research and study).
I think Fake Stephen Conry summed it up nicely earlier today:
Blogging in certain circles quickly degenerates into a self-referential circule jerk. It just seems to happen faster on twitter.
Again, however, the beauty of the system is that it’s extremely easy to avoid all that if you’re a little selective in who you add as a friend.
I can’t see the reason to differentiate Twitter and Facebook status updates – thankfully there’s an app that merges the two. Wordpress Lifestream is pretty cool too, for bringing them all into one place.
But twittering to all and sundry about the minutiae of one’s life? Yawn.
Sure, but it depends on what you put in as to what you get out. I write puns and witticisms. Most of the people I follow also write jokes. My twitter experience is of logging in for a few minutes to get my daily comedy fix from a range of people that would otherwise keep their humour to themselves, or on separate blogs. I get followed by people who want to read one-liners; I follow people who write what I like to read, and everyone is happy.
I imagine this is also the case for people who like writing about their breakfast, such as my favourite, @mytoaster.
By the way, has anyone else noticed that there are one hell of a lot of cats (or, owners pretending to be their cats) posting on twitter?
Here’s a whippet who blogs.
http://www.whippetsnippets.com/2009/03/three-reasons-why-this-whippet-tweets.html
Twitter in Alps rescue attempt
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/mar/04/twitter-death-entrepreneur-rob-william
Of course whippets are that smart! Seriously. I owned one for five years but it was stolen outside the Club Hotel in Armidale, before we had the by-pass. Smart dogs. Nevertheless, chihuahuas ….
Facebook in catchup mode adds twittering functionality.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=13909
Paul, we’re on our second whipster, a splendid specimen called Jasper who loves roaring up and down the beach with Rex the Minda Dog aka The Halfwit Hound.
While I can see the point of those who suggest Twitter has some yet insufficiently explored socio-cultural applications,I have quite a problem with being limited to only
140 characters
in search of an author.
jane @ 25,
My little one was called Faun. Lovely little one, she was too.
Thanks for checking out my blog. Yes I am a dog who tweets and blogs. My human is useless at it, and I am way more social. I like to run with the pack, what can I say. The beauty of Twitter is that if I don’t feel like sniffing annoying “SEO KING” and “MARKETING WHIZ” and “GET RICH NOW” butts anymore, it’s as simple as unfollowing and blocking them.
My whippet Agnes is very fond of your blog, Ribsy. But, she has a problem with it. When she goes to read the comments or write one, they’re not there. Can you suggest a solution?
Faun is a lovely name for a whip, Paul. And yours sounds gorgeous, Jane.
Hi Fine – why don’t you email me at whippetgood[at]gmail.com and I can look into it – don’t want to hijack this comments thread..
Yes, this tread has really gone to the dogs.
Arf, arf!
You mean it’s no longer a cat-like tread?