Is Twitter a viable tool for journalists? In my opinion, the ‘tool’ is only effective when it’s being used in viable function. You can’t use a Phillips Head screwdriver on a Flat Head screw. Well, you might be able to, but the screwdriver’s effectiveness might be challenged. The same applies to journalism efforts via Twitter.
Twitter commands a ‘following’. The journalist can only reach those who choose to let him do so. The bulk of a journalist’s followers are more than likely going to be those who subscribe to his beat, agenda, principals, and journalistic views. There are always those that choose to subscribe with the intent of offering an opposing view, however, I don’t believe the opposition are the majority. Can a journalist sway his opposing audience? It’s possible, but more than likely, not probable.
Twitter has the potential for effective use by journalists through enabling them to reach their audience quickly. Given the climate of media immediacy – on demand media – people have a need to know in the moment. Twitter allows for timely updates, and although character limits are set, links to further information can be provided and accessed readily.
I don’t see Twitter imposing any negative effects on journalism outside of the fact that, again, it commands a subscriber base. From a journalist’s point of view, your purpose is not only to reach those who agree with you, but also those who disagree. Journalists not only report and inform, but in essence, they’re also in the business to sell and persuade. If Twitter (as the Phillips Head screwdriver) primarily interacts with all Phillips Head screws, great. But, what are the chances of effectively completing the job if there are Flat Head screws out there in need of attention too?
