I find myself agreeing with most of it, particularly the productivity part. I work nowhere close to journalism but if I was tweeting all day I wouldn't get anything done.
That said, is there any getting away from an aggregator/microblogging service of some sort any more? These services have massively increased (casual) readership and it'd…
I find myself agreeing with most of it, particularly the productivity part. I work nowhere close to journalism but if I was tweeting all day I wouldn't get anything done.
That said, is there any getting away from an aggregator/microblogging service of some sort any more? These services have massively increased (casual) readership and it'd be a pretty gutsy move to just drop this stuff altogether and go back to the pre Twitter days.
In my mind the biggest benefit is you get to see who the writer really is as opposed to who that writer is when filtered through editors. Exposure to you and Ken through Twitter is the reason I'm even here to write this.
Have they massively increased casual readership? Twitter is generally in the single-digits for share of traffic generated to sites. Facebook and Google are a lot more important, and a reason for MSM outlets to push toward a post-Twitter future is that readers who do use Twitter as a landing page might instead start using their actual landing pages.
To emphasize this point about traffic, here’s what Liz Hoffman at Semafor said in her newsletter today:
“But here’s another data point: On Friday, I tweeted out our scoop that Elon Musk’s money manager was trying to raise more funds for the company, just six weeks after Musk took it private. That tweet ricocheted fast, and ultimately was seen by 4.4 million people – one in 50 daily active Twitter users, according to the company’s latest figures. Just 23,000 clicked through to the story.”
I guess I just don't think dropping Twitter avoids the issues you noted if all they're doing is the same damn thing on Facebook or post or mastodon or whatever else. Is there anyone who's actually left Twitter and not gone on to do practically the same thing at a different place?
I also think there's a symbiosis here - Twitter was where the audience was so more prominent voices came, which builds a bigger audience. Maybe this is just a fork in the evolutionary chain that needs to be cut off.
In any case thanks for the reasoned response. I think I'll always use some form of aggregator and don't love my options at the moment. The fact that I could use Twitter for both hyper local news like council meetings as well as international content is a pretty special combination that's not easily repeated.
I find myself agreeing with most of it, particularly the productivity part. I work nowhere close to journalism but if I was tweeting all day I wouldn't get anything done.
That said, is there any getting away from an aggregator/microblogging service of some sort any more? These services have massively increased (casual) readership and it'd be a pretty gutsy move to just drop this stuff altogether and go back to the pre Twitter days.
In my mind the biggest benefit is you get to see who the writer really is as opposed to who that writer is when filtered through editors. Exposure to you and Ken through Twitter is the reason I'm even here to write this.
Have they massively increased casual readership? Twitter is generally in the single-digits for share of traffic generated to sites. Facebook and Google are a lot more important, and a reason for MSM outlets to push toward a post-Twitter future is that readers who do use Twitter as a landing page might instead start using their actual landing pages.
To emphasize this point about traffic, here’s what Liz Hoffman at Semafor said in her newsletter today:
“But here’s another data point: On Friday, I tweeted out our scoop that Elon Musk’s money manager was trying to raise more funds for the company, just six weeks after Musk took it private. That tweet ricocheted fast, and ultimately was seen by 4.4 million people – one in 50 daily active Twitter users, according to the company’s latest figures. Just 23,000 clicked through to the story.”
I guess I just don't think dropping Twitter avoids the issues you noted if all they're doing is the same damn thing on Facebook or post or mastodon or whatever else. Is there anyone who's actually left Twitter and not gone on to do practically the same thing at a different place?
I also think there's a symbiosis here - Twitter was where the audience was so more prominent voices came, which builds a bigger audience. Maybe this is just a fork in the evolutionary chain that needs to be cut off.
In any case thanks for the reasoned response. I think I'll always use some form of aggregator and don't love my options at the moment. The fact that I could use Twitter for both hyper local news like council meetings as well as international content is a pretty special combination that's not easily repeated.