Comments on: Does Twitter really drive today’s news agenda?

By: Kathryn Bullock

Kathryn Bullock — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:53:54 +0000

When the London riots were on and there was a news blackout to try and deter further rioting, Twitter was the only way those of us in London close to the rioting were able to find out what was really going on. The combination of tweets and helicopter noise overhead was the only way to know how far or near the action was.

I think Twitter plays a key role for breaking news but agree that some London papers (albeit free) are full of personal low interest stories gleaned from social channels that would rightly never have been published pre social media.

Twitter has empowered some people to share great content and Huffington Post is testament to that but it has also created some lazy, low quality journalism.

By: Andy Jarosz

Andy Jarosz — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 08:23:30 +0000

Thanks for the comments. I do sometimes wonder if Twitter give some journalists an excuse to be a bit lazy. Too often (especially on BBC stories) there is a set of Twitter quotes that add nothing to the story but that have been copied and pasted from the author’s Twitter stream. Presumably in the ‘old days’ they would have had to find ‘the man in the street’ to get his views and now these vox pops are available in abundance.

Suspect we’ll look at this debate quite differently in another 5 years time.

By: Traveling Ted

Traveling Ted — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:48:00 +0000

I would agree with the assessments put forth in this article about the power of social media to drive stories. Unless less traditional sources have an awesome breaking story, most people still look to full time journalists and news sources for news.

By: David Whitley

David Whitley — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:17:41 +0000

What Twitter does is allow everyone to broadcast with no entry barrier. I don’t think this has happened in the past (Facebook is friends-only, the blogosphere too disparate and unchanneled). As with all broadcasting, those with a bigger audience can make the most impact. Hence BBC News or CNN or the Daily Mail will have far bigger impact on the news agenda than any Twitter account or Twitterstorm (which is usually reactionary anyway).

Big news organisations still set the news agenda, but they often go searching on Twitter for stories. Or individuals within said organisation can be pointed in the direction of a story by Twitter. That can change the news agenda, in much the same way that a good contacts book has always been able to change the news agenda.

By: Matthew Teller

Matthew Teller — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:56:58 +0000

Interesting thoughts, Andy – thank you. I think the key point to keep hold of here is that Twitter is not a source. It’s a medium.

If your post was titled “Does the printing press really drive today’s news agenda?” or “Does the internet really drive today’s news agenda?” it would be, well, you know.

Twitter, as you point out, is not replacing MSM/’professional journalism’ (whatever you’d like to call it) because they are complementary. Sources can use both to get their material out. Journalists – professional and otherwise – can use both, in a balanced approach of sourcing, challenging, verifying and/or discrediting which seems remarkably good so far at filtering out BS from both ‘sides’. Consumers can use both to build up a more nuanced picture of a news event.

Win-win.