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

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.

 

fixed

 

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.

 

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)

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

McLuhan was in a Woody Allen movie. Was Twitter?

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpIYz8tfGjY

 

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.

 

Piotr: You know nothing of his work.