I saw some tweets to a post, The Trouble With Twitter (Melissa Hart, The Chronicle review), and something occurred to me. The essay is another of the many Twitter critiques that, personally, I'm finding a bit tiresome. After reading it, I thought that what it amounted to was, "I don't want to change."
That's fine. No one needs to. At the same time, those who do want to are free to do so.
In some ways the essay is critical of the 140 character length imposed by Twitter and almost seems to confuse a headline with a story or, as I've put it before, a postcard with a letter. It doesn't quite get to that point, however. The essay seems to be more focused on the time element involved with Twitter and the idea that it takes time to fact check, absorb and understand, and then write the story. And I agree. However ...
In the case of the Twitter streams I follow, that's what happens. Tweets are more about: "This has happened," and "Something appears to be developing here," and "Trying to confirm a report ..."
In other words, they are often about the progression of the story, not the end piece. They are about keeping followers involved in the development of a story. And eventually, when all is said and done, the story itself - a link to the full piece.
What is often overlooked in all the pro and con debates about tools like Twitter is the responsibility of a reader. It's not just the journalist, or blogger, or whoever is doing the tweeting that has a responsibility. Readers have a responsibility to question what they are reading and consider its merits and to understand its intent, meaning and so on. If a story is unconfirmed, it is unconfirmed. That means it could be true but could just as easily be false. And anyone who has done any reading at all of news stories knows that what you read today can very easily change tomorrow because journalism has to wade through facts, PR spin and rumour to find out what exactly is true and many stories are ongoing.
The essay mentioned above is entirely from a particular journalist's perspective. It is about how she wants to research, understand and present a story, and that doesn't include a desire to keep readers informed of her progress as she does this. Again, that's fine if that's how you like to do things.
The problem, however, is that as a reader, I don't want to wait.
I don't want to wait till all is said and done and everything can be put in context before I find out what is or has been happening in my world. It is happening now and I want some information, even if incomplete, about what is going on. I want to know it's being investigated. I want a heads-up that a complete assessment is in the works and headed my way.
And I understand that, as a reader, I have a responsibility to give a tweet or post the appropriate credence and to see it for what it is.
Journalism is a two-way street. I know that. Give me some credit for being able to assess and judge the merits of something.
Listen
Follow Writelife on Twitter
