Is Twitter now the #1 news source on the planet?

[A-Tex Devil]

I have to think there's a non-trivial chunk of the viewing demographic out there that is sick and tired of what cable news has become and just wants good, quality reporting. It also seems like that group would trend towards the college-educated and at least somewhat affluent (i.e., middle to upper-middle class), so it's not like there won't be value there for advertisers. CNN could fill that niche, so why not do it? Become the U.S. version of BBC News.

It's funny -- you just described what the new HBO drama "Newsroom" purports to portray, in much the same manner as the West Wing tried portrayed the idyllic Oval Office. Newsroom is an overly preachy, deeply, deeply flawed, yet entertaining show that combines about 80% of the worst of Aaron Sorkin with 20% of the best with seemingly no in between. I watch it and enjoy it for Jeff Daniels, Sam Waterston and... um... Olivia Munn. But perhaps that discussion is for another thread.

Back on topic --- whether twitter is an important news source depends on how much weight you put on the "scoop." Unfortunately, I believe an inordinate amount of importance is put on "the scoop" by the news channels in every area (hard news, sports, entertainment) when I am not sure an overwhelming portion of the populace care or even recognize that I "heard it here first."

A scoop is important when you are breaking a story that may take hours, days or weeks for your competitors to get a handle on. Watergate and many of the Yahoo Sports stories the past 3 years come to mind. The fact that the three main cable news channels were so intent on scooping each other on the recent supreme court decision, causing 2 of the 3 to jump the gun and report it wrong, was one of the more embarrassing moments in recent history. Why the need to hurry? Does research really show that people are that quick to turn the channel?

[Tom B.]

It's funny -- you just described what the new HBO drama "Newsroom" purports to portray, in much the same manner as the West Wing tried portrayed the idyllic Oval Office. Newsroom is an overly preachy, deeply, deeply flawed, yet entertaining show that combines about 80% of the worst of Aaron Sorkin with 20% of the best with seemingly no in between. I watch it and enjoy it for Jeff Daniels, Sam Waterston and... um... Olivia Munn. But perhaps that discussion is for another thread.

Back on topic --- whether twitter is an important news source depends on how much weight you put on the "scoop." Unfortunately, I believe an inordinate amount of importance is put on "the scoop" by the news channels in every area (hard news, sports, entertainment) when I am not sure an overwhelming portion of the populace care or even recognize that I "heard it here first."

A scoop is important when you are breaking a story that may take hours, days or weeks for your competitors to get a handle on. Watergate and many of the Yahoo Sports stories the past 3 years come to mind. The fact that the three main cable news channels were so intent on scooping each other on the recent supreme court decision, causing 2 of the 3 to jump the gun and report it wrong, was one of the more embarrassing moments in recent history. Why the need to hurry? Does research really show that people are that quick to turn the channel?

But Watergate wasn't really a "scoop" in that sense -- that is, it wasn't one big bombshell that just blew up one day. Rather, it was a series of stories drawn out over several months that were the fruits of reporters doing the hard work of journalism -- pounding the pavement to track down leads and sources, then putting the pieces together bit by painstaking bit.

As for The Newsroom, I heard a lot of negative reviews early, but after watching a few episodes, I think they were overblown. There was one review that said whether or not you like the show will depend mostly on whether or not you like Aaron Sorkin's style, and I think that pretty much gets it right. It is, as you said, preachy and flawed, but it still manages to be quite entertaining -- which, when you think about it, sums up a lot of Sorkin's work, especially when it crosses paths with politics. On a spectrum of The Social Network to Studio 60, I'd put it a little closer to the former than the latter -- not up to the quality of A Few Good Men, SportsNight or West Wing Season 2, but more like somewhere around West Wing Seasons 3/4.

[A-Tex Devil]

But Watergate wasn't really a "scoop" in that sense -- that is, it wasn't one big bombshell that just blew up one day.

Right. But when a bombshell does occur in a single day, everyone will be on top of it immediately. If CNN reports the name of the Colorado gunman or the Supreme Court decision 5 minutes or even 20 minutes before MSNBC or Fox or the major networks, do we care? I don't. But Twitter has created this one upsmanship that seems to matter, especially in the world of sports. Why do I care if Rivals told me about a recruit's commitment "exclusively" if as soon as he announces it, Scout and ESPN will have a story up in 5 minutes?

Maybe there is a segment of our population where this matters, and maybe it does drive advertising dollars. The idea of the "scoop" though, outside of real investigative journalism, is a false victory, imo, that doesn't necessarily, and usually shouldn't, deserve praise.

[Tom B.]

Right. But when a bombshell does occur in a single day, everyone will be on top of it immediately. If CNN reports the name of the Colorado gunman or the Supreme Court decision 5 minutes or even 20 minutes before MSNBC or Fox or the major networks, do we care? I don't. But Twitter has created this one upsmanship that seems to matter, especially in the world of sports. Why do I care if Rivals told me about a recruit's commitment "exclusively" if as soon as he announces it, Scout and ESPN will have a story up in 5 minutes?

Maybe there is a segment of our population where this matters, and maybe it does drive advertising dollars. The idea of the "scoop" though, outside of real investigative journalism, is a false victory, imo, that doesn't necessarily, and usually shouldn't, deserve praise.

Agreed. I guess being first by an hour or even a few minutes was a big deal back in the day, when that could be the difference between getting your story in tomorrow's paper or having to wait for the next day's edition, after your competitor was already a day ahead of you. TV made that less important, though -- you could be first in the morning newspaper, but the networks would chase the story during the day and build on it by the time the evening news rolled around. Those time horizons only kept shrinking with the advent of 24-hour cable news and, now, social media, to the point where now nobody really cares who's first, because everyone else will have it in a matter of minutes.

Nowadays, the real scoops come not from just being the first one to report a new fact, but from reporting a story with such depth, representing such an investment of time and leg work, that nobody else could hope to catch up to you or capture the story just by repeating (or re-tweeting?) your headline.

There's a great scene in All The President's Men where Robert Redford is at his desk, talking on the phone with a source, when all Hell breaks loose in the newsroom. Everyone scrambles over to a TV to see what's going on (if I recall correctly, the story that had just broken was Thomas Eagleton announcing that he was dropping off of the Democratic ticket) -- everyone, that is, except for Redford. The camera focuses in on him as he continues his phone conversation, his eyes growing increasingly wide as he realizes he may be on to something big. He finishes the call and hangs up, then calls his partner and begins to process the profound implications of what he's just been told, all the while ignoring the chaos that continues to swirl around him. The symbolism is hardly subtle -- while most of the reporters in the room (and, for that matter, the city) were scrambling to play catch-up on what they thought was The Big Story, there were a couple of journalists who stayed on target and, as a result, kept themselves out in front of the real story of the 1972 election.

[rasputin]

Right. But when a bombshell does occur in a single day, everyone will be on top of it immediately. If CNN reports the name of the Colorado gunman or the Supreme Court decision 5 minutes or even 20 minutes before MSNBC or Fox or the major networks, do we care? I don't. But Twitter has created this one upsmanship that seems to matter, especially in the world of sports. Why do I care if Rivals told me about a recruit's commitment "exclusively" if as soon as he announces it, Scout and ESPN will have a story up in 5 minutes?

Maybe there is a segment of our population where this matters, and maybe it does drive advertising dollars. The idea of the "scoop" though, outside of real investigative journalism, is a false victory, imo, that doesn't necessarily, and usually shouldn't, deserve praise.

And don't forget the breathless mainstream news networks calling Florida for Gore in 2000. They had to be first!

[AtlBluRew]

Here's an example of the Guardian building its entire story around one man's Tweets. I have to admit, even though the Tweets were done after the events in the story were over, they add a sense of immediacy to the story.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...senger-account

(On a side note, my eyes welled up with a deep sadness for the Marine in the story. I hope he finds help, and peace.)

[Indoor66]

God help us if it is. The World in 180 characters. What a load.