Twitter: Don't praise it too hard
Friday, June 19, 2009 at 04:56PM Jack Schafer, of Slate, is taking Twitter to task:
I've found it more noise than signal in understanding the Iranian upheaval. I'm not saying that there is no signal to be found; I'm just saying that my cognitive colander isn't big enough to strain out Iran information I can rely on. Slate contributor Joshua Kucera made this point two days ago in True/Slant, compiling an early list of erroneous data points about the Iranian uprising that Twitterers were circulating: 3 million people demonstrating against the regime, the house arrest of Mir Hossein Mousavi, and the annulment of the election by authorities, for instance.
Far be it from me to be a media apologist (as I view myself as quite the watchdog), but I think he's right. Twitter is definitely in something of a finest hour (Andrew Sullivan's words) because of its sheer speed, portability and candidness. Not since the Internet has information been so easy to generate. But remember, the people on the streets--politically embattled or otherwise--don't have a gang of fact-checkers. If anything, Twitter does allow us to document history at an even rawer level than news. If journalism is the first draft of history, Twitter is the free-write that precedes it.
Culture, Politics, Tech | Print Article
Reader Comments (1)
Twitter itself cannot be candid, only those who use it. But I feel like a very old lady when I hear about Twitter. I'm always thinking, "Twitter-what?! That sounds like a bunch of noise!" You know, much like those who "just didn't get" the Beatles. I hope the fad dies out soon. Because I'd really like to be cool again.