I find it a great way to keep up with other journalists covering the same topic I do.
In my area (travel), but also in many others, colleagues are spread across the globe. Twitter's a great way to keep a finger on the pulse of your community, find story ideas, and build relationships that never would occur in real time/space.
No longer do you have to be the only religion writer, airline writer, or education writer in your office. You can join and learn from others on Twitter, and other social media.
Crowdsourcing is great, and I do it all the time, but there's one thing journalists should keep in mind about it: Twitter is far from hosting a representative sample of any local, regional or national population. It seems to skew young, tech savvy and liberal/Democrat just about everywhere it exists.
That said, Twitter tends to attract people who aren't shy about their opinions and have already found ways to share them -- including lots and lots of bloggers.
It's good to keep a finger on the pulse of this group, since they define so much of what gets talked about online, and our job is to follow that conversation.
But as journalists, we should remember that though the voices of our digital readers are loudest, they should not monopolize our attention.
And though the presence of ordinary people online is a great step toward the ideal an open forum, we won't really get there until all people can get there, equally, and speak with the same power.
The Web is awesome. Social media is awesome. But our duty is always to reach people where they are -- and not forget them.
There is no best use. It depends on the journalist, the news organization if there is one), what they are covering, how many followers they have...
And it can change over time & depending on what they want to accomplish.
The worst use is just a feed with no curating or interaction which sadly is what too many news organizations do and why they often don't have many followers considering their brand.
I find it a great way to keep up with other journalists covering the same topic I do.
In my area (travel), but also in many others, colleagues are spread across the globe. Twitter's a great way to keep a finger on the pulse of your community, find story ideas, and build relationships that never would occur in real time/space.
No longer do you have to be the only religion writer, airline writer, or education writer in your office. You can join and learn from others on Twitter, and other social media.
Crowdsourcing is great, and I do it all the time, but there's one thing journalists should keep in mind about it: Twitter is far from hosting a representative sample of any local, regional or national population. It seems to skew young, tech savvy and liberal/Democrat just about everywhere it exists.
That said, Twitter tends to attract people who aren't shy about their opinions and have already found ways to share them -- including lots and lots of bloggers.
It's good to keep a finger on the pulse of this group, since they define so much of what gets talked about online, and our job is to follow that conversation.
But as journalists, we should remember that though the voices of our digital readers are loudest, they should not monopolize our attention.
And though the presence of ordinary people online is a great step toward the ideal an open forum, we won't really get there until all people can get there, equally, and speak with the same power.
The Web is awesome. Social media is awesome. But our duty is always to reach people where they are -- and not forget them.
There is no best use. It depends on the journalist, the news organization if there is one), what they are covering, how many followers they have...
And it can change over time & depending on what they want to accomplish.
The worst use is just a feed with no curating or interaction which sadly is what too many news organizations do and why they often don't have many followers considering their brand.