Clay Travis on why every writer/journalist needs to be active on Twitter

[dreunc1542]

Toy: www.amazon.com/Radio-Control-Hobbies/b?ie=UTF8&node=166583011

Not a toy: topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/unmanned_aerial_vehicles/index.html

Technology - even, or especially, information technology - depends entirely upon how it's applied.

McLuhan would disagree.

True.

But McLuhan predates (and yet somehow sort of predicts) the actual interactivity of the information age. At least to the extent that he asserts all our relationships to all media were always "interactive." But were they really? It's an interesting question to ask in light of technologies that serve not only as speakers on which to hear others, but as megaphones by which we broadcast ourselves.

McLuhan's notion of interactivity was conceptual. The interactivity of information age social media is real.

That's a good point, but I still think there is some truth to the notion that the media themselves need to be critiqued and not just how they're used/the content that comes from them.

 

[Starman]

Whether its correct or incorrect, Twitter is the new toy for instant misinformation.

fixed

 

[JPsT]

Don't retweet it just because it is there. Make sure it is correct. Retweeting it attaches your name to it.

I'd like to address this because I've seen this sentiment on the board multiple times.

To me, a retweet is the same as a quote. If I retweet something Pat Forde tweeted, I'm showing everyone what Pat Forde said. If he turns out to be wrong, am I suddenly wrong too?

I'm not going to go around retweeting something that's blatantly wrong, but I don't agree that it attaches your name to it.

Ideally, it shouldn't. But if you cover college basketball and you retweet a bad report from Pat Forde ... yeah, your name is attached to it. That's one of the reasons seemingly everyone includes a "retweets do not imply endorsements" disclaimer on their Twitter bio.

Think of it this way: If AP reports prematurely on the death of a prominent coach and you report what they reported ... you can blame AP all you want, and you'd be right, but the fact is, your readers/viewers were only paying attention to your report, which turned out to be incorrect. So that's on you, too, for an inaccurate report.

It's no different on Twitter: If you retweet something that turns out to be wrong ... well, yeah, you're wrong, too. (Again, this applies to those whose followers expect them to report news, such as almost all beat writers. If I, from my personal account that only my friends follow, retweet a bad report from AP ... well, nobody's paying attention to me for breaking news. But if Pat Forde retweets @BreakingNews saying that Dean Smith has died when he's very much alive ... it attaches his name to it, like it or not.)

I don't agree. If I report someone else is saying something, and they turn out to be wrong, it's my obligation to make sure the correct information gets out, but it's not an inaccurate report.

If I say: The AP reports Dean Smith has died. Then, it turns out Dean Smith is fine (which is good, I hope he doesn't die), my report still isn't inaccurate. Dean Smith hasn't died, but the AP did indeed report he had.

(Forgive me for trying to reply to all posts without doing an obnoxious 5 posts in a row or something here.)

To Moddy's point, "Dude, JPST tweeted Dean Smith died." They're wrong. I didn't. I retweeted something. A reader believing I reported something I actually didn't, while being something I should strive to minimize, probably isn't something I can prevent. RTs allow you to do exactly that. The other person's avatar pops up. It says their name instead of yours. If people can't figure out I didn't say that, I'm not sure what else I can do.

And Versatile: Yeah...that's why I said I wouldn't RT anything blatantly wrong.

We may just disagree, and that's fine, but I'm enjoying the thoughts. Hopefully the discussion can continue.

 

[buckweaver]

If I say: The AP reports Dean Smith has died. Then, it turns out Dean Smith is fine (which is good, I hope he doesn't die), my report still isn't inaccurate. Dean Smith hasn't died, but the AP did indeed report he had.

...

To Moddy's point, "Dude, JPST tweeted Dean Smith died." They're wrong. I didn't. I retweeted something. A reader believing I reported something I actually didn't, while being something I should strive to minimize, probably isn't something I can prevent. RTs allow you to do exactly that. The other person's avatar pops up. It says their name instead of yours. If people can't figure out I didn't say that, I'm not sure what else I can do.

If you're using Tweetdeck or Hootsuite, there are two ways RTs appear ... both with the retweeter's avatar displayed much more prominently than the original tweeter.

In fact, if you choose "Edit then retweet" and then click send (which you can now do on every Twitter-related app/site), it doesn't display the original tweeter's avatar at all.

Here's a good screenshot of Tweetdeck: http://sandymillin.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/tweetdeck.png. Notice all four entries under the Search column and the second and third entries under the Mentions column. Your eye is drawn to the retweeter's avatar in all cases, not the original tweeter.

So while you're technically correct in that you didn't make the incorrect report ... it's also something you should do everything in your power to avoid being associated with. That includes being very, very careful about retweets that you wouldn't feel comfortable tweeting out if you were reporting it. Because your followers are paying attention to what you're you tweeting. And retweeting.


(Click to embiggen)

 

[JPsT]

If I say: The AP reports Dean Smith has died. Then, it turns out Dean Smith is fine (which is good, I hope he doesn't die), my report still isn't inaccurate. Dean Smith hasn't died, but the AP did indeed report he had.

...

To Moddy's point, "Dude, JPST tweeted Dean Smith died." They're wrong. I didn't. I retweeted something. A reader believing I reported something I actually didn't, while being something I should strive to minimize, probably isn't something I can prevent. RTs allow you to do exactly that. The other person's avatar pops up. It says their name instead of yours. If people can't figure out I didn't say that, I'm not sure what else I can do.

If you're using Tweetdeck or Hootsuite, there are two ways RTs appear ... both with the retweeter's avatar displayed much more prominently than the original tweeter.

In fact, if you choose "Edit then retweet" and then click send (which you can now do on every Twitter-related app/site), it doesn't display the original tweeter's avatar at all.

So while you're technically correct in that you didn't make the incorrect report ... it's also something you should do everything in your power to avoid being associated with. That includes being very, very careful about retweets that you wouldn't feel comfortable tweeting out if you were reporting it. Because your followers are paying attention to what you're you tweeting. And retweeting.

Yes, the people just typing "RT" are doing a different style (the way RTs originally appeared when using any kind of Twitter client), so perhaps it's not wise for journalists to stick with Twitter's "new" RT.

We could go through different clients all day, but if the person is savvy enough to be using something other than Twitter via Web, I'd hope we could also give them credit for being able to identify what's a RT and what isn't. Maybe not. (An aside: My eye is actually drawn to the fact that the photo is off center). But again, if someone believes something, but it totally wrong, is that on me? Taking it out of the social media world, if a person really and truly believes that the beat reporter wrote the column bashing their favorite team, and believes the beat reporter hates their team, what are we to do about that? Presumably tell them they're wrong if we come into contact with them and explain how things work. Can't we do the same in the social media realm...perhaps even more efficiently?

Just to clarify, you're saying since people will mistakenly think you're the one tweeting whatever you're retweeting, you should only retweet things you'd actually report? Then why not just tweet them yourself?

I see the RT as a valuable tool with which you can share information and source it properly. Richard Deitsch calls it 'the ultimate sign of Twitter respect.' in this exchange with Darren Rovell on a similar topic: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/web/COM1187848/3/index.htm

Like everything, you don't want to do it indiscriminately, but I don't think you're the one wiping egg off your face when you RT a bad scoop.

 

[dooley_womack1]

So you're really OK with just passing along any old shirt on your Twitter and not taking any responsibility?

 

[buckweaver]

Like everything, you don't want to do it indiscriminately, but I don't think you're the one wiping egg off your face when you RT a bad scoop.

If you are covering that beat, or you are a reporter expected to break news about a similar subject ... then yes, you are wiping egg off your face for passing along bad information. Your entire job description is to do exactly the opposite.

How is the retweet of a bad scoop any different from writing an incorrect story based on bad information from a trusted source? You're still the one sending that information on to your readers.

 

[Stitch]

I don't care about #whenblackpeoplegetpaid or #alicesbucketlist? Get rid of crappy hashtags and I'll engage a bit more.

 

[dooley_womack1]

McLuhan was in a Woody Allen movie. Was Twitter?

 

[Azrael]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpIYz8tfGjY

 

[PaperClip529]

The real issue is how Twitter is being used and misused by reporters. There are certain archetypes too many reporters fall into on Twitter:

1. "I just wrote a story about this, so I'm going to tweet about it constantly" -- We get that you did a feature story on that one coach, but that doesn't mean every tweet you post for the next three days has to revolve around that interview or person.
2. "I feel the extreme need to reply to all the slapdicks who tweet at me" -- The Internet is full of morons. Your responses only nurture that idiocy and clog your timeline. Answer real questions.
3. "I tweet 200 times a game even when I'm covering something that isn't on my beat" -- I would advocate for the toning down of play-by-play even when it's on a reporter's beat, but if you happen to be filling in on the minor-league hockey game, none of your followers care.
4. "I dnt need 2 spl wrds rite" -- Your Twitter is as much, if not more, a representation of your journalism as your stories that get published on websites and in print.
5. "I cover the State U Wildcats, so I am therefore qualified to tweet constantly about everything in the sports world" -- I think it's actually a good thing to branch out from your beat on Twitter occasionally, as sports fans tend to like many sports. But if your Twitter account is associated with your work, and your work is "beat reporter for the State U Wildcats," maybe you should realize that most people who follow you want State U Wildcats news for the most part.
6. "I only tweet for one hour a day, but I tweet like 50 times in that hour" -- The whole point is having a real-time conversation. It's extremely ineffective to be the guy who posts 10 links and 40 other thoughts at 9 a.m. when he starts work, then stops tweeting entirely for the rest of the day while he does what he considers his "real work." You can get more impact with one tweet an hour for eight hours than 24 tweets in one hour and none the rest of the day.

Completely agree with your second point. As I've found out before, Twitter can be a dangerous thing when you get into it with a follower. Tweets are easily erasable but some things never go away.

I can't say that I agree with #5 though.

With Twitter being as much a part of people's lives as it is and being as accessible as it is (I personally have Twitter on my phone, iPod and computer), it it shouldn't be a surprise when people tweet outside their beat. It happens. I just don't have a problem with people getting to express their opinions on things like everyone else who owns a Twitter account.

My followers know that I am going to provide them with the best coverage of my beat but I also occasionally post tweets about local athletics that aren't on my beat, myself and random pop culture references. If they don't like it, nobody is forcing them to follow me and nobody is paying me for beat-exclusive content so if I want to post an occasional tweet about my Alma mater's football team, people can get over it. I follow Buster Olney on Twitter and it always cracks me up whenever he re-tweets the anger directed at him when he posts a non-baseball tweet. It's not the end of the world.

I am a big Twitter fan. It's a great way to network and promote my beat/work. Yes, there are some annoying people out there on Twitter but to me, Twitter isn't about who I follow, it's about who follows me.

I don't understand how a beat reporter in 2012 (that year seems weird to type) doesn't have a Twitter account. I can kind of understand why a writer wouldn't have one but since Twitter can be used as a promotional tool, it seems like it could be useful. I think that Twitter can even be useful for an editor or someone on the desk who is working the night shift because I can't tell you how many times that I've been called for an update on a game that I have been constantly tweeting updates about.

Just my thoughts on Twitter. Hope that everyone had a great (and safe) New Years Eve.

 

[Big Circus]

Piotr: You know nothing of his work.