Twitter...may be not like all the rest

At first I didnt think that Twitter was anything new. I mean the FB status updates do virtually the same things as Tweets. One of the biggest criticism of sites like Facebook and Myspace is that they are one of the most obvious indicators that today's youth are overly self-indulgent and Twitter is no different. I mean honestly who cares about "what's happening," with you at any random moment of the day or what the 411 is every time your mood status just happens to change. Lots of cultural analysts have written about the whole, "everybody wants to be a hyper local celebrity" phenomenon but Twitter is bigger than that I think. Sure, on the surface it indulges the current trend of of Facebook, Myspace and Youtube, which allows people to "broadcast themselves" in a way that doesn't make them seem completely insecure and shallow.

But I think the Osterman Blog has a point, Twitter is about the followers as well as the followed. It is not AS one sided and self-indulgent as Fb, which really doesn't have a way of telling its profilers how many views they receive daily or what their followers to followed ratio is, because that was never the point of FB. ITS ALL ABOUT YOU. I think it is fair to say that Twitter's low retention rate is in part due to the intimidation users' first feel looking at their f:f ratio. Nobody wants to have to work for popularity, acceptance or fame. I mean if you cant even be a celebrity of your on Twitter world than what the hell is the point.

Social Networking

So the importance of social networking sites seems to have already been beaten to death. Companies, whether online-based or not, have traditionally used sites like Facebook, Twitter, and iGoogle to: 1)promote upcoming events 2) create a dialogue surrounding their service 3) attract followers of similar services to their own or 4) just keep tabs on what their customers are looking for. For the Connecticut Mirror project, I looked at two challenges: a)Is there a way to use social networking sites even more specifically than the usual way businesses have been and b) how do we get older people or those less inclined to use Fb (i.e Dan) to follow the trend as well.

I think the point is to use those sites as a way to compensate for what the Connecticut Mirror site would probably inherently lack. For example, it would not be able to post infomation as quickly as Twitter. But the advantages of "microblogging" for a start-up news aggregator are just too good to overlook. With each post, you give the reader five more links to look at. For sites like the Ct Mirror, it is not about how much original content you provide but how easily you can provide people with the information they want (just like the Google model).

Further sites like FB are generally better at organizing reader's comments. If a company does a good job at continually posting on its FB page, it can provide all of the conveniences of microblogging, linking to more expansive articles, and providing a space for discussions. In the meantime, the main site will provide links to not only the main social sites but also to apps for smartphones (i.e. Blackberry and iphone).

Just Thoughts...

So I struggled to define exactly what this new online news service is . So far I got--it's a non-profit, local/hyperlocal, online news provider/aggregator. If that is not complicated enough, my group talked about using social networking sites, embedding video and podcasts, allowing for some citizen journalists and possibly crowd-sourcing by allowing comments on articles.

I am particulary interested more in the social networking stuff. Meaning how do we use sites like Fb, Twitter, Myspace, etc. to not only attract web news surfers but also retain a loyal user base. Should we follow the business model that other online start-ups are using or should a news site like this be more traditional with its approach and allow the content to attract people on its own.

This week I will be looking at how other local/hyperlocal news siteshave incorporated video, how they have appealed to their users through social networking sites and what the "promise," "tool" and "bargain " are of some of the other social news/community news sites.

Is There More Bias in Local News?

I must admit I am not very enthusiastic to report the election results of my hometown: New York City. Bloomberg, the incumbant, who has already been in office for two terms won by only five points promising yet another four years full of the most Republican-esque policies in the most consistently democratic state. It is an irony that I will never understand. Anyway, the polls prior to the Election showed that Bloomberg was ahead of his challenger, Bill Thompson, more than 18 points. But surpringly, Bloomberg won by only five on Election Day.

The Amsterdam News, one of the most local and historic papers in the City, reported that even though Bill Thompson was defeated, the amount of votes he got was actually a victory! It was one of the most bias and slightly ridiculous articles that I have ever read. Who wants to defend a loser! The Amsterdam News was the only paper to endorse Thompson and considering that Bloomberg is not especially popular in the black community, it is no surprise that the Harlem-based paper was not happy. But honestly, they could have just reported the facts. While it is true that Thompson did better than was expected, I would not start praising him as the noble underdog just yet. After all, especially in the case of elections--almost really doesn't count.

This got me thinking. Is there more allowance for bias in more local reporting? Do the readers of these papers or websites really care about objective reporting or is it okay because they are reading the articles in a more subjective context. The Amsterdam News has a very specific audience. I doubt that anyone was upset about the post-election article that so obviously supported Thompson and opposed Bloomberg. I mean if it's only "your people" that are reading, does objectivity really matter?

Response to Shirky... Duh?

Shirky is either a brilliant  "new media" analyst or a reporter of the blatantly obvious. Honestly, I am not sure which. He makes the point that it's the little inventions or advancements in new media (i.e. camera phone, e-mail, the Web) that make the greatest impact. In short, "new behaviors" matter more than "new technologies" (159-160).   Well I think everyone has already realized the amazing significance of email.  And I am not sure what the new behavior is. Is it that advertisers are now applying the science-based, viral infection pattern to marketing. Or is it that people are actually more susceptible to it because of the Web. Either way, Shirky seems to be downplaying the significance of the inventions and overstating the change in human behavior. I don't think the desires or needs of people really changes or at least it doesn't change as fast as the inventions produced to better meet those needs or desires. 

Television News Disappoints Again...

The Trent Lott story is just too juicy. I don't know where to start. Obviously someone (or in this case, all of the mainstream news ) made a huge boo-boo. As we all know, any story involving race, presidential candidates and Southern segregationists should have gotten as much coverage as swine flu or a political sex scandal. And yet...Nothing! It is time that mainstream news, especially television, admit that it has forgotten its purpose. It has replaced all sense of inquiry and responsibility for investigative reporting with trivial conventions. William O'Keefe's explanation simply isn't good enough. Since when did news have to have the public's reaction before a story became worth reporting. The story is what triggers the reaction, not the other way around. By the way, Rosen's whole explanation of the news cycle's logic was brilliant and so sadly explained the issue with television news. No wonder young people, ages 18 to 24, don't watch television news or read the paper, and rely on Jon Stewart for their current events updates. It turns out now we should add blogs to our list. How sad.