´óÏó´«Ã½

Brilliantly relevant post there Rory.

I've only been on twitter since the start of 2011. A bit of a late adoption, I know! However I am now completely in love with it. I am still utterly amazed at the access it gives to the lives of others, the unfolding of global events and unprecendented ability that it gives journalists to blog from the very front line.

The awful news of Tim Hetherington's death in Libya, with Tim tweeting minutes before he was fatally wounded, shows that journalists and commentators are now able to bring us news, views and opinion that make traditional 'live' news look positively analogue...your final paragraph regarding the Times & Telegraph apps highlight this very clearly.

I think that the real upshot of all this is not that he users of these apps aren't getting their monies worth, but that they've backed the wrong horse. They should have invested their £1/week, or whatever it is, in twitter instead!

I don't see a bright future for the traditional press.

I have ceased reading newspapers as a source of current information. Instead, I sit at breakfast, going through my twitter feed on my iPad. It's like a newspaper, but it's not out of date. And most importantly, it's focussed around my own interests and priorities, not those of some morally dubious press-baron proprietor who is keen to "shape public opinion" while charging that same public for the privilege. (and advertisers to boot).

Sorry, but that 20th century business models is collapsing. And good riddance I say.

C.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Well this is a major coup for Twitter and will 'big up' the service. It will possibly sound a death knell to other would be competitors (only time will tell). Believe it or not, i first heard this news on CNET this morning and my views on Twitter has not and will not change. I am not a journalist and find it irrelevant to my needs

And, just like the "CNN moment", we need to learn fast that just because something is instant doesn't mean it's true. CNN has become a laughing stock since the Gulf War as the truth about its reporters' close connections with the US military has come out, and Twitter likewise gives no guarantee about the journalistic standards of those who twit.

No spin doctor or PR department can work without using twitter but that doesn't matter as they all already do.

Is this really a defining moment? That very first tweet was by a guy who didn't know what was happening - it was a single tweet among millions of tweets, and no-one knew the importance of it. There's speedy discussion, and there are verified facts. The Internet is great for the former, but not the latter. Even the Washington insider announcing the news on Twitter 60mins before President Obama seemed to have passed on second-hand information.

How much more can you push Twitter? The 'scoop' was an observation, which did not explain the event. This is not journalism, it's a coincidence.

The tweet at the time was completely useless. It was only later when it was revealed what was really going on by some1 else that it was clear what he had tweeted about. Looking back, the tweet is more of a novelty than a defining journalistic moment.

The sheer volume of tweets breaking the news before the mainstream media is the story here: a politically connected relation of mine in New Zealand re-tweeted the prediction from a political contact in the States ... an hour before the NY Times, then CNN reported it, and then Obama announced it. That's the power of Twitter.

Consider: if Osama Bin Laden had been following his local tweets he might have had time to take evasive action or even effective aggressive action against his attackers!

Would that have been such a 'valuable' contribution to the safety of the World?

Would you be praising technology so much in these circumstances?

Information is a two edged weapon! It is never neutral!

How was this a 'CNN moment'? That doesn't make sense. If I want news, I go to a news medium, because I know that it will be there. What do I get from Twitter? Gossip. If I'm lucky. Mostly inane rubbish about what someone I've never met had for breakfast. How could anyone pull that one tweet from the millions and claim it was a news service? Mr. Cellan-Jones needs to stop his breathless fanboi support for Twitter and put it where it belongs.

Twitter is mostly for twits who can't read or understand joined up English!

99.99999% of people only know about the guy tweeting the attack because they've read about it in the traditional news media. The death of news services as we know them? I don't think so.

Where is the journalistic need for verification in all of this? Who or what is Sohaib Athar, the background is important and does not fit in a tweet.

Why is there no obvious way of Tweeting this article!?

Correlating and commenting on Twitter-based news is a function currently mostly served by print media, true.

But just like the race to "bring the news first" they may find themselves competing with Twitter or similar online sources in the near future. The difference is it's a competition they stand a remote chance of winning.

It may serve the press to reposition themselves as a source of organised quality news, though this would require a dramatic shift to providing quality news in the first place. As an image thing it may also help to stop calling it journalism, in other words the practise of journal-keeping, to distance themselves from the diary-like "first source" contributions of the likes of Sohaib Athar and Keith Urbahn.

My current students in Intermediate Journalism Class at the Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria training School, Lagos Nigeria, should read this and make comments. The Social Media are already proven their edge in terms of speed and citizen involvement in news gathering and dissemination.

No journalist ignores them.

Thanks Rory.

Those on this blog who have questioned the importance of Twitter don't understand what it is.

It's not comparable to anything that has gone before, it is one of many new digital media phenomena that are changing how we communicate with each other. It is about the voice (and sometimes wisdom) of the crowd, which has millions more outposts, feelers and sources than the traditional 'official' media ever will. How it transforms the media and journalism in particular is becoming more apparent every day, and there are already services which are working to sift, filter and categorise Twitter sources to make them more easily accessible and digestible.

I'm a relatively recent convert myself, but can promise you that when you learn how to use Twitter, you realise that the mainstream news media is quite a one-dimensional service, with headlines and sources chosen by a few for the many. Twitter's headlines and sources are chosen by the many for the many, and that surely is true democratisation of information.

The point, Hernehunter, is that those pearls of wisdom (in 140 characters or less) lack analysis, moderation and context. How does the removal of journalism make conventional media one-dimensional?

The argument of mass empowerment is also vapid - in what way does Twitter provide greater access than email, Facebook, MySpace or, indeed, conventional print?

However, each to their own. I am more concerned that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is so overly promoting Twitter. Has news gathering now become a social activity? Or is it simply a cheaper way to gather news?

That's where you're wrong Edwin, tweets are not limited to 140 characters, they can act as a gateway to any web page. You can shorten links like this one - - try it, it takes you to this page. And the link can be to anything, any source, your own blog or even mainstream media! And of course retweets allow mainstream or unofficial media (such as the chap in Abbotabad) to be amplified as necessary, if worthwhile. If you then imagine that a tweet is a signal or home page to any website or source, then the possibilities are endless.

So analysis and context are very much included. Moderation, admittedly, is up to the user, but that's how it should work anyway isn't it? Isn't that empowerment? The other social media you mention are for particular purposes: direct messaging and socialising, which is different to the way was created Twitter is now used. Sure it's micro-blogging, but it has become organised by users in a way that I'm sure the founders didn't even envisage.

One more thing Edwin, in answer to "in what way does Twitter provide greater access than email, Facebook, MySpace or, indeed, conventional print?":

Searchability.

Think what Google has done for information gathering. Now think about Twitter and see how similar it is (wait for the ads!), and how different it is to email, Facebook, MySpace or, indeed, conventional print.

Hernehunter , my apologies. I was under the assumption that Twitter was just a medium to let people know you have bought a new hat, or have let the cat out. Much like Facebook. Phenomenon? Sorry, I thought it was a fad.

To answer your question Rory, what are iPad users getting for their app? Take today, The Times has provided rolling coverage on its app since 7am, evolving throughout as the results have been called.

Yet, there's no commentary on how this is outplaying the printed version of the paper which was woefully out of date before it even arrived on the news stand.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?