Mumbai terrorist attacks had Twitter users twitering about the attacks at a lightning pace. This same pattern of lightning response can be traced to Obama’s win earlier this month. It can also be traced to the China earthquake as well. I must point out that both Asia and the U.S. have adopted similar uses for Twitter in major incidences.
Twitter outstripped the mainstream media in terms of delivery of news and many were proclaiming that citizen journalism via micro blogging was the way to go. It’s interesting to note that CNN actually used the photo sharing site Flickr to compliment it’s reporting. Google map was also used to share the location of the building.
While the role of micro blogging is ever more prominent in delivering news fast, it tends to repeat the same things over and over without any insights or additional information. The 140 word limit is a double edged sword. It allows swift spreading of the message but it lacks the details of any major incident.
In all instances, the starting point of any new discussions on microblogging came from mainstream media. While I’m an advocate of web2.0, mainstream media still has it’s place in providing credible news. Deeper insights can be found via citizen journalism by longer blog postings.
For now i see micro-blogging playing the role of the message spreader in our society. Quick lightning approach of the general topic of a major incident. Any details will be found in mainstream media which will simulate thought process amongst opinions leaders to share with the rest of the blogosphere.
Do you have a different viewpoint has to how micro-blogging is being used?
Found this article on friendfeed which contradicts what i say? What do you guys think?
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/features/media/081128-twitter
I find it interesting that the online crowd is proud that social media has become, “a force to be reckoned with”….only after CNN proclaims it to be so.
Thought leadership still with mainstream media? Or not enough opinion leaders online to spur more thoughts?