In the Fresh Air Biz

Twitter frequency.

Although I’m still trying to sort out my feelings over Twitter’s rejection of my advances, I thought I would still let you know that tomorrow’s “Fresh Air” will feature Twitter Co-founder Biz Stone. According to their promotion, the conversation will center on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s speech at George Washington University.

Give it a listen when it airs, or from their site, or through the podcast, and we can talk about it if I feel discussing Twitter when I see you on the ‘morrow, on the Web.

More than Twinfluence

A San Francisco treat.

We can no longer ignore Twitter’s growing influence in recording—and affecting—
world events. We have bee using Twitter to follow breaking news more and more. Today, as the questions around the stability and infrastructure of Egypt’s government began to get answered, Twitter hosted a live discussion of world events with Susan Rice, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations.

Live Broadcasting by Ustream

Egypt has been dominating the news for almost two weeks now, with Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms an integral part of the coverage. And the coverage of the coverage.

On these platforms, we are building better sources. We are building better discussions. We are building better information. It’s hard to image that this is what the creators of twttr had in mind when they designed the service in 2006.

Take a moment to ponder that, and we can talk about it when I see you on the ‘morrow, on the Web.

Marshaling Malcolm’s Message

Writing a wrong.

Jesus Christ, he’s done it again. As if to prove that he cannot admit to being wrong, Malcolm Gladwell has weighed in, again, on whether or not the people of an oppressed country really need Twitter.

In a new online article for The New Yorker, Mr. Gladwell’s most-recent misguided missive completely contradicts Marshall McLuhan’s argument that the form of communication informs the communication.

“People with a grievance will always find ways to communicate with each other. How they choose to do it is less interesting, in the end, than why they were driven to do it in the first place.”
Malcolm Gladwell- The New Yorker, 02 February 2011

In the current case with Egyptians looking to oust their president, Mr. Gladwell is missing a number of important points which make Twitter a large part of the story. Granted, without Twitter, protesters would still be protesting. But the ease and availability of information distribution through Twitter has allowed Egyptians to broadcast their grievances, rationale, and actions more quickly to a world watching the dominoes fall.

Yes, people can organize without Twitter. Yes, protesters can voice their concerns using traditional media outlets. Yes, eyewitnesses can share their accounts with anyone who asks. But our new information tools bring speed, relevance, and attention to growing unrest with remarkable alacrity.

Even when the Egyptian government tried to limit the way people communicate, information still escaped. I can’t emphasize enough how significant it is that Google set up their Speak to Tweet service over the weekend. For a company whose mission is to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful,” it’s very telling that Google focused their resources on a way for the Egyptian people to stay in touch with Twitter.

I almost feel bad for Mr. Gladwell. The more he dismisses Twitter as a means for communication, the more out of touch he sounds. No, Twitter is not the reason for recent revolutions. But without it, we would not be watching. Or listening. Or learning. Which will continue when I see you on the ‘morrow, on the Web.

Egypt Engaged

Bridging the divide.

We’re seeing Twitter’s force in political unrest again this week. Following the events in Tunisia, people around the Middle East are coming together, in online forums and in city plazas, to bring change to the regimes they have been enduring for decades.

This afternoon, The Poynter Institute will be hosting a live chat with NPR Senior Strategist Andy Carvin about the role social media has been playing in Egypt, and presumably Tunisia. The chat starts in a few minutes, so head over there now, and I’ll see you on the ‘morrow, on the Web.

Tweeting a More Perfect Union

Elected to Twitter.

By now you know that I have an affinity for using Twitter as a platform for a more open democracy. There are two events today that I want to point you to which use Twitter to bridge the gap between the people and our government.

First, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs again took questions from followers for about an hour today. An interesting answer Mr. Gibbs gave concerned the Twitter account he‘s currently using: François Larouche asked about the status of the account after Mr. Gibbs leaves his post in early February. In his reply, Mr. Gibbs said that he’s leaving the account to his successor, and hoped that the next Press Secretary would continue using it in a similar manner.

Next, Florida’s new governor, Rick Scott, is hosting what he’s calling a “Twitter Town Hall.” Now, I’m no fan of Governor Scott, but I applaud his attempts at open government. We’ll see how many probing questions actually get answered. But for now, all we can do is put hope in the power of Twitter, and Florida’s Sunshine Law.

If you want to follow the conversation later, take a look at the site Ron Sachs Communications has set up (especially since the Twitter link on the governor’s home page connects you to the wrong account). You’ll be able to see all the questions posted, in addition to the answers Governor Scott chooses to answer.

I’ll be watching, and I hope you will be, too. We can talk about the results when I see you on the ‘morrow, on the Web.

Making Facebook Make News

Facebook Media and the message.

Facebook is playing catchup. At least that’s what it feels like.

After visiting them last night for the “ONA SF - Facebook Strategies for Online Journalists Meetup,” I get the impression that Facebook wants desperately to be a part of journalists’ lives. But, unlike Twitter, Facebook has yet to be integrated into most news organizations’ daily operation for anything more than promotion. One exception to that rule is NPR.

During his portion of the evening, NPR Senior Strategist Andy Carvin shared some of the many ways they are using Facebook, as well as other social tools, to create, evaluate, and circulate stories to their audience. Additionally, he shared some recent survey results and metrics about audience usage, engagement, and page views.

What I found most important about NPR’s social tools use is that every effort is made to support their broader mission: to create a more informed public. But what I find lacking in their Facebook efforts is not NPR’s fault; it’s Facebook’s.

In the evening’s introduction, Facebook Director of Media Partnerships Justin Osofsky highlighted the resources available on the Facebook + Media page. Sure, there are success stories and best practices, but most point to story distribution and audience engagement. While these are very important for creating and keeping consumers of content, they don’t provide any tools for creating content itself. The next shift for media organizations has to be building social tools for making great content quickly.

Another interesting observation from my trip to Palo Alto was that not one person in the room, during any presentation or subsequent Q&A, said the the word “monetize.” Although I was thankful that the discussion didn’t get hijacked by a debate on how media organizations can make money using Facebook, I was surprised that there was no pragmatic advice on how to effectively and efficiently use limited resources on efforts which yielded no increased income for a struggling industry.

I understand that Facebook is good at letting media brands interact with their users, if they choose to invest the time to do so. What’s more important to me right now, however, is how Facebook, and any other social or online tool, can help news people more easily create good journalism. Twitter is great for breaking news. Facebook is great at sharing news. Who will make it easy to create news? A question that will go unanswered until I see you on the ‘morrow, on the Web.

An Evening at Facebook

Facebooked.

Today’s post is just a quick note to tell you where I’m headed tonight: Facebook.

No, I haven’t changed allegiances. No, I don’t think they are Twitter-killers. And no, I’m not headed south to get a piece of the Goldman Sachs stock sale.

I will be joining a Meetup with Justin Osofsky, director of media partnerships at Facebook (and not on Twitter); Andy Carvin, senior strategist for social media desk at NPR; and Levi Sumagaysay, Good Morning Silicon Valley blogger/producer, to discuss digital journalism. In light of how Mr. Carvin dominated how I followed the events in Tunisia, I felt like I couldn’t pass this up. Plus, We’re both part of an extended NPR family.

So, I’m headed to Palo Alto to find out what I can find out, and learn as much as I can learn. I hope to tell you all about it on the ‘morrow, on the Web.

Was Tunisia a Twitter Revolution?

Twitter will be televised.

Have you seen any of the news coverage of the events in Tunisia? Where is the press getting all this, only from Twitter? Have they been fact-checking any of these updates? Do they need to fact-check the updates they see on Twitter? Do journalists look into other eyewitness reports? Or are they just reporting them verbatim because they’re on Twitter?

And, doesn’t it seem like their only source for breaking news these days is Twitter? How many stories did you see on television in the past week that used Twitter as at least one of the information sources? Are you even watching televised news any more?

Is this such a bad thing? Can you think of the last time you heard about breaking news first on any other source? Sully on the Hudson? Michael Jackson’s death? The latest earthquake?

Doesn’t it seem like newspeople are investigating fewer leads? Are they just turning to Twitter because they’re lazy? Do they explore their curiosities about anything else? Have they missed any important local stories because they’re too busy watching their Twitter stream?

Who is gathering your news? Should we be gathering it for ourselves? From Twitter? All these interrogatives leave me wondering, “will I see you on the ‘morrow, on the Web?”

Tweeting Toward Revolution

Parti Pirate Tunisien.

Yesterday, I focused on the prospects of bringing real change to people’s lives through Twitter. Although the post was inspired by what I was seeing happen in Tunisia, it was not directly about the reports of the uprising, just some observations about how the reports were being curated.

Today, we have witnessed the results of those collective voices: change. While some U.S.-based news organizations were reporting on man versus machine or (wo)man versus dog, other news organizations were reporting on man versus movement.

Now the debate about Twitter’s role in the outcome has begun. The opinions are many, and, at the time of this writing, I have only been able to digest a few. Life’s Little Boxes has some thoughts about Twitter as a means of information distribution. The New York Times credits the acceleration of the protests to the heavy use of social media. And GigaOm uses the moment to rehash the “Twitter as force for change” discussion that came to a head last October.

No matter your opinion of Twitter’s role in the ousting of an authoritarian regime, it’s comforting to know that the tools for change are becoming more available to people around the globe. The fact that more than 40 percent of all Twitter usage occurs on mobile devices is a large reason for this. People on the ground, in the middle of growing protest and unrest, can share captured moments, thoughts, and events to a vastly wider audience. While we run the risk of making more of a moment than we should, the amplification of an uprising can now be more quickly validated as more eyewitnesses get to tell their tales.

Twitter will continue to be used in movements across the globe, whether for organizing or broadcasting. My hope is that we continue creating tools to help drive information into action. Including seeing you on the ‘morrow, on the Web.

The Real Value of Twitter

No to murder.

Can Twitter save lives? According to Malcolm Gladwell’s piece in the 04 October 2010 issue of The New Yorker, the connection between updates and action is too far removed to have a real impact on lives. Some disagree. And if the social gadgets Andy Carvin is putting together really work, we could be seeing the start of Twitter tools that change all that.

“Lowering the barrier to activism doesn't weaken humanity, it brings us together and it makes us stronger.”
Twitter Co-founder Biz Stone- The Atlantic, 19 October 2010

In an ongoing effort to harness to power of social media in areas of conflict, Mr. Carvin is culling resources so that those closest to the action can get their message out to the rest of the world. His latest effort is focused on the turmoil in Tunisia. These first-hand witnesses to history are providing the most immediate—and the most poignant—perspectives of developments from inside uprisings, natural disasters, and authoritarian regimes.

Through efforts like Crisis Camp and the collection of information from within troubled territories, Twitter, and social media in general, can get the right information to the right people at the right time for them to act. The tools to get this information out exist now. Building something to make it easier to act should be the new focus.

More and more, eyewitnesses are writing the first draft of our collective history on Twitter. It’s what we do with that initial information that will decide how our history will be judged. Innovation on the Twitter platform is vital to greater information distribution. Its usefulness is still growing, and as we continue to build on top of it, the real value of Twitter will soon be realized. I’ll keep building, and see you on the ‘morrow, on the Web.

Transparency on Twitter

We regret the error.

This blog focuses primarily on Twitter. But one of my bailiwicks from a past life is journalism. And while I’ve created blogs primarily devoted to the vagaries of reporting news to audiences who may—or may—not care, those have long since been put to bed. Every now and then, however, I’ll notice some news coverage which gets my dander up. This weekend’s reporting of the shooting in Tucson is the latest example.

On Sunday, I was watching “This Week” from ABC News. The episode included a piece from Pierre Thomas about the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner. In an ten minute profile, one of the still images of Mr. Loughner included a caption with his name spelled incorrectly.

Not “Jarod Lee Loffner.”

Now, I understand reporting errors occur every day; this very post might even have one. But multi-million dollar news organizations should make very few of them, especially when they are devoting so many of their resources to following such a potential ratings bonanza. What’s more important to me, however, is what they do when they discover an error.

That’s why I found a discussion on a recent “On the Media” so interesting. The segment featured a conversation between co-host Bob Garfield and Craig Silverman of Regret the Error about how news organizations handle corrections, if at all. It was surprising to me how many media outlets devote so few resources to updates of erroneous stories.

“... at places like CNN and FOX News and other large broadcasters there was either very little or nothing at all when it came to error reporting mechanisms.”
Craig Silverman- “On the Media,” 24 December 2010

Coincidently, I noticed a conversation on Twitter about a very similar topic. Prompted after the Poynter Institute posted a story calling Twitter an “imperfect news channel,” the discussion (which is embedded below) included recommendations about how newsrooms could signify corrected and amended information in updates.

Correcting conversation. 

Later, ABC World News promoted a story from Monday‘s broadcast, but misspelled the name of Mr. Loughner. I sent a reply, they corrected the mistake in a new update, but made no mention that it was correcting an error. They also deleted the incorrect update. It was minor, but was it transparent?

If we are going to continue to trust news agencies online as much as we do in broadcasts, they are obliged to find a more open way to correct and notify audiences of previous mistakes. Until they do, they are missing an important part of the transparency good reporting, and journalism in general, requires.

With that off my chest, I’ll get back to building with the Twitter API, and tell you about it on the ‘morrow, on the Web.

Twinformation

Time for Twitter News tools.

Part of my Sunday is usually spent in front of the television. I watch almost every weekly news show. This Sunday, I’ll also be tuned in to “Reliable Sources” on CNN to see host Howard Kurtz interview the Co-founder of Twitter, Biz Stone. Since the CNN show usually focuses on how journalists work, and evaluates the press as a part of the stories they cover, one can assume that Mr. Stone’s appearance will be part of a discussion on how Twitter is playing a more important role in breaking, and then disseminating, news.

As a former public radio producer, I could go on and on about this, but others do that much better than I, and the focus of this blog is supposed to be learning how to use the Twitter API. So I’ll try to focus my thoughts on the integration of information into Twitter-related applications.

I‘ve often longed for many different ways to sort the constant stream of updates when news stories break. Sometimes I want updates from a certain ZIP Code. Other times I just want all updates from a specific person over a specified period of time. Still, in other instances, the rise and fall of a Trending Topic is useful to illustrate how the mood of a country changes as a story unfolds. If there were tools that could dial in some granular dissection as events occur—or even as we evaluate them—I think we could all benefit.

An after-the-fact assessment of an incident is often more important to the immediate coverage of the same event. A lot times, those live reports can only do so much, and we are left, especially as television viewers, enduring the speculation and conjecture of reporters who are not necessarily the most well-versed reporters on a topic; they just happen to be geographically closest to the story. There is a great deal wrong with this model in my mind, but with some additional Twitter tools, experts from around the globe would be able to share, comment, and lend some informed perspective to stories in areas of their expertise (apologies, Mr. Hodgman).

Twitter can be an excellent resource for the initial, eyewitness accounts of important events. But the conversation shouldn’t (nor rarely does) end there. As properly informed people weigh in with the nuanced interpretation that they have worked a lifetime building, Twitter followers around the globe get the opportunity to form a more colorful picture of the facts underlying any news story, and the repercussions for our future.

While rumors of a Twitter news channel were obviously overblown, one only needed to look to the experts to find out the truth. It’s amazing how little Twitter searching it takes to clarify an evolving topic. Take the Wikileaks Trending Topic dust up from this week. With the right research, any journalist worth his or her laminated press credential would have had the correct facts in seconds flat.

Twitter is not a replacement for news organizations. It is another tool for responsible journalists to use as they collect and distribute the stories they think are important to share with their audience. I love what Twitter can do, but it cannot replace real journalism. And if we build tools to make Twitter even more useful, maybe even the lazy journalists will be able to provide good news.

As I prepare to spend my Sunday as I usually do, away from this blog, watching the morning news shows, I will be hoping that what I am watching has been thoroughly vetted, checked, and evaluated. I will assume it has, and Twitter was some part of the process. But know that as I flip around listening to the talking heads, lamenting the huge void that remains after Tim Russert’s death, I’ll be thinking, “See you on the ‘morrow, on the Web.”