Hello there. I'm suspending the more formal third-person of AP style in order to write a more opinionated piece about effective communication formats.
Speaking strictly from a journalist's perspective, there is little doubt in my mind that Twitter is far more useful for gathering information than Facebook. There are many reasons why. First, hashtags have the potential to be tremendously useful to journalists because by looking for a particular hashtag, writers can find all kinds of sources and loads of information that they wouldn't have otherwise.
For instance, by typing the hashtag "#justicefortrayvon" into Twitter's search box, you might be able to find testimonies of people who live in the area or maybe from relatives. Granted, all the information would be inherently biased, but you could just as easily look up "#justiceforzimmerman" or some other source.
Of course, it's also important to look for sources who are disinterested to cut down on bias, and to find sources from more reliable places than a Twitter hashtag, but I think that Twitter is still a good starting point for gathering sources.
The main difference between Twitter and Facebook is that Facebook is inherently limited to whatever group of friends you currently have. What, there's an uprising in Egypt and you don't have any Egyptian friends? Tough beans. Get on Twitter and search for "#morsisucks" or, to get the other side, "#morsi4dictator".
I think I've made my point. Facebook has its merits for personal use, but falls short for any real journalistic potential. Check out the links below for more information.
http://mashable.com/2012/11/30/twitter-political-journalism/
http://youtu.be/Nl9xI-kAE8A
Speaking strictly from a journalist's perspective, there is little doubt in my mind that Twitter is far more useful for gathering information than Facebook. There are many reasons why. First, hashtags have the potential to be tremendously useful to journalists because by looking for a particular hashtag, writers can find all kinds of sources and loads of information that they wouldn't have otherwise.
For instance, by typing the hashtag "#justicefortrayvon" into Twitter's search box, you might be able to find testimonies of people who live in the area or maybe from relatives. Granted, all the information would be inherently biased, but you could just as easily look up "#justiceforzimmerman" or some other source.
Of course, it's also important to look for sources who are disinterested to cut down on bias, and to find sources from more reliable places than a Twitter hashtag, but I think that Twitter is still a good starting point for gathering sources.
The main difference between Twitter and Facebook is that Facebook is inherently limited to whatever group of friends you currently have. What, there's an uprising in Egypt and you don't have any Egyptian friends? Tough beans. Get on Twitter and search for "#morsisucks" or, to get the other side, "#morsi4dictator".
I think I've made my point. Facebook has its merits for personal use, but falls short for any real journalistic potential. Check out the links below for more information.
http://mashable.com/2012/11/30/twitter-political-journalism/
http://youtu.be/Nl9xI-kAE8A
No comments:
Post a Comment