“annoying” Photo Credit: Flickr User scriptingnews
Though initially skeptical of Twitter, I’ve not only enjoyed using it, I’ve seen it do some amazing things. Taking the example of how to use Twitter for journalism and how not to, let’s look at who’s doing it well and who isn’t. Two examples: John Meyers, Sacramento Bureau Chief for KQED Public Radio, and the New York Times.
KQED’s John Myers decided to join Twitter experiment during the waning ours of the California budget revision negotiations. He even made some headlines… Mostly because John Myers had the inside scoop on what political junkies and concerned citizens across the state were dying to know. First and foremost, Mr. Myers’ approach is excellent because it is primarily informative. And not in a superficial way. Myers’ KQED_CapNotes gives followers real time interesting information on the politics in Sacramento. As illustrated in the graphic above, Myers also does a nice job of ecouraging followers to actually listening to the California Report while also providing excellent reportage as evidence as why people should actually tune in.
Bad Twitter: The New York Times
1000voices started following the New York Times, and much to my chagrin I realized that it was total garbage. I was surprised. the Times blogs are excellent as is the Times iphone application. I was definatately expecting more. In short, the sporadic innundation of my twitter feed with links to articles doesn’t entice me to follow any links, and actually inhibits my ability to follow people and entities who are creating meaningful updates on Twitter. The Times should trim down it’s content and create accounts for each of it’s great blogs. I might quit following the Times much as I already quit following the Guardian (UK) for similar reasons. PS- The Guardian also has an excellent iphone app.