EduMusings

I was disappointed but not surprised to see that washingtonpost.com cut back on some of their online chats (every day they have about 7 or 8 forums on various topics, from celebrity gossip to local politics, hosted by an expert in that field). Could it be that even online media are feeling the pinch that their print colleagues are experiencing? Not long ago, my hometown paper, The San Francisco Chronicle revealed its financial troubles.

Is the internet to blame for the woes of traditional publishers?

People have been able to get news off of the internet for over 15 years, so why does it seem like papers are suddenly folding? Social media can be one culprit. I know most of my friends get at least some news from topical blogs, most of which don’t even pretend to be objective. The nature of these tools has conditioned us to expect our information instantaneously, and we’re often willing to sacrifice quality and objectivity of reporting for fast reporting. Andrew Careaga wrote earlier this week about how this trend may have influenced a metamorphosis (perhaps ill-conceived) in the newspaper industry and how papers are approaching their content.

The explosion in popularity of social media plays a huge role in reshaping our definition of timeliness. Take the recent example of the emergency airplane landing in the Hudson River. The earliest reports from the scene came from Twitter users on a nearby commuter ferry. There are even reports of Twitter being used to break news on campus, as was the case with this reported shooting on the campus of the University of Central Arkansas last year.

In some ways this is a good thing: there’s no way any news organization could have been on the scene any earlier and the Twitter poster assured many worried people that there were survivors. But, in some ways this is bad: Twitter allows for rumors and half-truths to spread quickly. 

Also, beyond the bare facts: the plane made an emergency landing and there are survivors- no other facts were known. If you actually wanted to learn why the plane had to land and read interviews with the pilot and passengers you had to find a news article.

As someone who doesn’t fully understand the allure of Twitter, I really enjoyed Tim Berry’s fairly balanced take on Twitter, especially what he had to say about Twitter with regards to business:

Twitter is no more good or bad for business than telephones, letters, conversations, or pies in the face. The medium isn’t the message; the message is the message. I have lots of twitter friends who are straight, like it, keep in touch with it, and — lo and behold — that’s good for their business. But is being in twitter good for business? Nope.

He also notes his annoyance with “Twitter clutter,” which is essentially junk Twitter posts. Jon Stewart, as is so often the case, did a great job of distilling Twitter-mania in a recent Daily Show segment:

It’s important for any business or institution to restrain themselves from posting anything: Facebook wall posts, Twitter updates or blogs just to have something to post. Many people do like getting lots of updates and would especially welcome them from institutions they are interested in or planning to attend. While this can be a useful social media tool for institutions, it’s important to balance the value of the quick check-in update (which helps keep your institution on your prospect’s radar) with substantive content (which the prospect will seek out if they are interested).