Twitter Part Deux: Revenge of the Tweet

Earlier in my blog, I wrote a post how athletes need to be careful with how they handle Twitter. For those who don't know, Twitter allows for a person to post (in 140 words or less) anything at any given time from well, anywhere they have an Internet connection. As the popularity of Twitter increases, more and more people are finding themselves on the social networking site.

This also includes journalists. Twitter allows for instant breaking news stories to circulate around the Internet in the blink of an eye. With the ever popular "Trend List" on the side bar, people can click on a word and get every status that is associated with it. In a sense, journalists can tweet their own stories in hopes of gaining a broader audience. Another good thing about Twitter is the ability to network. By clicking one button, person 'A' can "follow" person 'B' which allows for 'A' to then keep up on everything 'B' tweets. Re-tweeting is also essential in networking on Twitter and vital to helping journalists get their message or story across.

However, there is also a danger in posting on Twitter. Journalists, especially those with a large contingent of followers, usually find themselves re-tweeted helping pass along their message to an even greater number of people on the social networking site. The danger in that is with 140 words or less, those journalists better be sure what they're saying is correct. Perhaps that's the most difficult thing about Twitter, knowing who to trust.

I tend to follow sports writers because I'd like to be updated on current news events. Generally, they are the same people who only tweet about their specialty in regards to whatever sport it is they cover. If journalists wants to use Twitter, they have to be responsible about what they post while trying to build that relationship of trust with their "followers." It's hard to say where to go in terms of trying to reach readers who don't know the difference between a good and a bad tweets. I'd like to think it's a mix of the journalists (for not posting false or wrong information) and the reader (for double-checking if something sounds wrong).

Maybe a checks and balancing system would work? In a way, Twitter would be a good outlet because it does allow for a person to reply to another's tweet, even if they aren't "following" them. At some point, you'd assume that person would check to see what types of responses they are getting and perhaps notice if they'd made a mistake with someone catching it.

With that said, it is difficult to draw the line between breaking-news stories and hearsay/gossip. One notable example was the shocking death of Michael Jackson. While TMZ reported it, many people on Twitter were still confused as to whether it were true or not. They re-tweeted it but also stated their doubt alongside. Twitter is a good medium for voicing opinion and sharing news but at the end of the day, it's up to a journalist to use their best judgment on what to post.