Update: CNN says “It was the day social media appeared to come of age and signaled itself as a news-gathering force to be reckoned with.”
Twitter is emerging as a major force in breaking news. But some people disagree.
Today we saw yet another illustration, when people in Mumbai got the word of terrorist attacks out to the world well before mainstream media even knew something was happening. Mathew Ingram points out previous examples of Twitter users breaking important world news.
If I didn’t hear about something important happening by watching my Twitter stream, it’s the first place I go to get an idea of what’s going on. Years ago I would have turned to the cable news channels, now it’s Twitter.
It’s not just the speed of early reports either. Twitter also serves up a constant stream of updates as situations progress.
The facts seem to be irrefutable. But some people disagree, as they wrote in comments to my Mumbai post. You should also read TomsTechBlog, who argues that it’s irresponsible to think of Twitter as a news source. The reason? The facts are often wrong.
This is the same argument that mainstream journalists used against blogs when they rose to fill a void in the news over the last few years. Yet even the NY Times admitted years ago that blogs were an important news source when disaster struck: “For vivid reporting from the enormous zone of tsunami disaster, it was hard to beat the blogs.”
But blogs are nothing compared to Twitter, which lets anyone with a cell phone instantly update the world with what they see and hear, via the simple and ubiquitous text message.
Sure, lots of Twitter messages are flat out wrong and can spread disinformation. But as Ingram notes in his blog post above, other people tend to immediately correct those errors. Bad information is quickly drowned out by good information.
You can jump up and down and shout all you want that Twitter isn’t a real news source. But all you are doing is viewing the world through a reality lens that’s way outdated. People want information fast and raw from people who are on the scene. If it gets a little messy along the way, that’s ok. We’ll soon see tools that help us distill the really good stuff out of the stream anyway.
What matters isn’t any individual Twitter message and whether it’s right or wrong. It’s the organism as a whole, the aggregate, that lets people stream what they’re witnessing in real time to the world. That aggregate stream gives us more information, faster, than anything before. It’s news, and it’s incredibly valuable.
See all
Post
Twitter is one of my main sources of news now, the first I heard about the horrible terrorist attacks in Mumbai was on Twitter, if it wasn’t for Twitter I might not have heard about it for days.
yeah, if it wasn’t for Twitter, I wouldn’t have heard about it at all!
The problem is that Twitter can never be relied on as a trusted source and trust is the most important piece of proper news journalism. Anyone with a Twitter account can jump online and post whatever they like. If there is no way to verify it, there is no way to properly treat it as news. Twitter may be a rumor site, but news it is not.
Yes anon but the beauty of Twitter is that YOU choose who you follow and therefore you can choose to follow only trustworthy people. Why would you follow anyone you wouldn’t trust? Don’t forget that your personal friends are also a source for news, and Twitted is an extension of that, but since Twitter is the way it is, not only do you get the jist of the story but you also get links to the original news source.
In a striking news event across the world you will read tweets from people you don’t necessarily follow, know, or trust.
Exactly. Unless you have friends in ground zero, any account you get will be from sources you cannot trust. Chances are the majority of tweets yesterday were not coming from ground zero, but were coming from people who heard the news first through traditional outlets or other secondary sources. News is about reality. Hearsay is not journalism and is not news. It doesn’t surprise me that TC overlooked this fact when writing this story.
actually, mainstream media in India (TV) had reported the attacks way before it spread on twitter.
you guys seriously think that you would think of sending an SMS while under a terrorist attack? This is bullshit, the first thing you’d do is run and save your life!
The ones who really provide valuable information on any major events are the police and medical assistance. And guess who they report to first? Journalists. I mean real ones, who apply double-verification and all the shit.
Get a clue.
@chris The second thing you will do is try to contact someone [or everyone
]
Citizen journalism is certainly a viable source of news. Live video feeds, photos, blogs, microblogs, and things not yet thought of etc…
But, as with any news, it is up to the recipient of the news to maintain skepticism and avoid jumping to conclusions inappropriately.
@anon - I would rather choose who to follow and make a determination about reliability based on corroborating sources than watch three network news stations that are owned by giant corporations that have a vested interest in deceiving the public and sculpting public opinion. Fox News Channel being the most egregious and pathetic example of which.
The world will not change until sources of information are decentralized…and non-adapters die off.
Were it not for Twitter I would still be in the dark.
then try opening a news website once in a while, good grief Charlie Brown
were it not for twitter, i would still be a woman.
The timing of this story is in poor taste, and a bit myopic, Mike.
Poor taste, given what just happened. You need to be tactful in when you write these second day, irrelevant stories.
Not well thought out.
I’m sure all investors in Twitter would like to see their accomplishments broadcast far and wide. What could be in bad taste about that?
Twitter isn’t a news source
Twitter provides Breaking News before most major media sites these days.
As you rightly mentioned, Mumbai Terrorist Attacks was all over Twitter well before bigger media news sites.
It sure is one!
A useful tool!
Personally, as a freelancer, I used Twitter to contact sources and to discover new relevant ones. but Twitter is also a social protest tool - see the recent Twitter Moms vs. Motrin case .
Twitter rocks … I would add Twitter is not only a new source .. but ppl can create news here itself ….
In twitter correspondents are everywhere unlike traditional journalism 1 reporter and 1 cameraman .. twitter gets input 1000’s of reporters
Since yesterday i haven’t switched on my TV set … have been glued to twitter for updates on Mumbai Terror Attacks .. lol
Suraj
There will always be people out there who disagree either because they are stupid, don’t like the truth, like winding people up (troll), or they want you to spell out exactly *how* twitter is a News source to save them having to think.
I suppose it’s not possible for someone to disagree because they actually have a different, intelligent view on the subject?
The problem with following the events on twitter was that all but very few of the tweets mentioning Mumbai were third person references. Things like “can’t believe what is happening in Mumbai” made the tweet page useless for the most part.
TV and web media news can be “directed” and express certain point of views. In many cases TV media made mistake by providing false news. Through twitter and similar services you receive news by different sources (and I believe more sources than a reporter in the point of interest). Of cource someone can send “directed” news by twitter also. But there is large number of sources-users to compare and make your own opinion.
Pountzas Th.
Patras / GREECE
how do you get news from twitter? who do you have to add?
For people wondering how exactly it works, it’s the Twitter Search functionality:
http://search.twitter.com
For example “mumbai”: http://search.twitter.com/search?q=mumbai
Note to Twitter team: you should put a “Search” button more prominent on your site
Cheers
http://www.flidge.com
This blog post is on point. I stay connected with the pulse of my industry and breaking news through Twitterl it is more current than blogs or any other media outlet.
Is there an example anyone can give of a tweet that broke news on the Mumbai attacks before the media did? I agree that Twitter is a great tool for gathering first-hand information, but most of the Mumbai twittering seems to be people watching the news and Twittering it or passing on what they are hearing. Has anything new or original gone up on twitter before the professionals had it?
I still don’t really understand how that works. So I have to search for mumbai? but I don’t even know there’s something going on over there.
Does it depend on who you follow?
Sure, Twitter is fantastic for breaking the news and letting the world know something has happened but how much news can you transmit in 140 chars? Once the story was broken, all I saw on Twitter were links to news stories on other sites.
First of all: data != news
Second: Reading the tweets of someone watching CNN is not first hand data.
Third: At best Twitter is a headline source, headlines are the lowest form of sensationalistic news
Happy Thanksgiving!
Twitter can be used as a news service. However because this is done as a second thought it is not well organized as there is no systematic way to enter news so that it can be easily found and separated from the noise.
Because of this there is no easy and fast way to search for this information.
We have built have integrated a news posting service into our micro blog “Conversations” This ability to post news to the microblog is also integrated into our feed reader and both services post to twitter.
We you search on adelph.us for a news story you will receive results that are from both main stream media as well as from related micro blogs.
How many tweets were actually from people in Mumbai AND close enough to report on the action?
Arrington, I do agree with you that Twitter is a source of news. However, how could we ensure the validity and credibility of it? CNN, BBC and AlJazeera created their trustworthy media coverage by walking through different systematic procedures, and the mass are fruitfully forced in a way or another to trust them. But, Twitter and other Mass Collaboration online communities lack a very vital issue which is the anonymity of their participants. Do you trust news coming from all your followers? I do trust you as a news source, because it takes you a couple of yours to build it, but what about millions of users who are joining the community every minute. Shouldn’t they build their own trust among others?
I trust it in the aggregate. that’s what matters.
I do respect your view point. But, do you think this affects your TC Network positively?
we have to adapt. I believe we are.
‘The aggregate’ may still remain a kind of probability wave. And to take action one has to build upon trustworty results. On the other hand, it may not.
Trust in the aggregate? Really?
Do you know who else worked that way, Mike.
The Nazi’s.
Wow.
how’d I manage to get called a Nazi?
.
oh yeah. because I like Twitter.
Hey is this news correct???…. if so…whyn not on twitter or elsewhere?? google cutting lean means serious economic depression…
“Google will “significantly” reduce its 10,000-odd contract workers worldwide, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. The move may impact India where the search giant employs more than 1,000 people, primarily in Hyderabad and Bangalore.
A large portion of Google’s workforce in India is contracted out by “vendors” and does not show on its payroll.
“We have been thinking for some time, before the acute phase of the economic crisis, about significantly reducing the number of contract workers,” the Wall Street Journal quoted Google spokesperson Jane Penner as saying.”
I just farted. You guys are the first to know that. I hope you feel privileged. No need to thank me.
lol! thanks to twitter! first hand coverage.
bullshit
fart isn’t a news..moron..it’s your butt activity..but thanks for informed it to us..and that we call a “breaking” news..
You’re a fukin retard. News enuff for ya?
Twitter may be inaccurate in terms of detail, but the beauty of it is that a discerning reader can gain alot just from getting the bigger picture.
I haven’t felt the need to read any of my RSS feeds lately; Twitter gives me more than enough articles (and vital news) to read. Good examples include: @techcrunch @computerworld @makeuseof @cnn @gizmodo
All i can say is that since morning i am getting my update from tweets from people in mumbai. I have yet to see the news channel, as i am getting all the info i need.
I personally feel twitter is best place to get the news.
People are twittering what they are seeing on TV .. no one is allowed to go near the site. All that twitter helps is to get aggregated info - So, if you want real news, watch TV!
Don`t you think that TV does not have access to the other corner of the world where you havent been there ?
Right, it does .. but its buried - mostly there is noise!
Forget to mention .. Whatever the REAL people - the ones who are trapped or can give first hand account of the information - their tweets are buried somewhere which you cant locate
Twitter has really been great in providing a stream of news, but one thing I was thinking about is how online user-journalism favours the more economically/technologically developed. We won’t get twitter updates from many people in the Congo, or in countries where such web services are banned.
Are Twitter users journalists? No. Therefore twitter is not news. It is not possible to call a Tweet news. Its not possible to add an y analysis or depth on 160 characters. If Twitter is your view on what news should be you are either a teenager or just ignorant.
The more podcasts, blogs and Tweets I listen to and read the more I appreciate the professionalism of the likes of the BBC, CNN etc. The noise to signal ratio is just too much on the amateur outlets.
I wasn’t aware that only journalists could report news. Should all the journalists leave, would the world stop turning?
If somebody informs you of something you previously did not know about, whatever the medium, then that is news.
Journalists are trained to report events in a particular way, but that doesn’t mean they are the only ones capable or reporting news.
Also, in response to an earlier coment about Twitter facts not being reliable, don’t the major news networks get facts wrong too? They report stuff as it happens and the facts change all the time. What about Al Gore winning the US Presidential elections in 2000 according to one major network….
Twitter is just another new source of news, which filters through different demographics rather than being broadcast to the masses in one go. Nothing wrong with that. It’s news on a more conversational level because you can respond to it instantly.
I can’t believe it’s not butter
Oh and one other thing. Are you trinbg to tell me that there is a significant number of people who just happen to be on the ground in Mumbai and also happen to be Twitter users? Clearly the number of Twitter users within a few KM of the site in Mumbai will be pretty low. I therefore conclude that most of the ‘Tweets’ (god I feel like a kid when I write that) must be getting their information from other sources such as CNN etc.
Mumbnai is not Souyth by South West you know. Believe or not Arrington the world outside your little strip of land is not spending their days breaking news with their mobile phones and SMS messages.
If you really think the majority of the Tweets were from folks within the area in Mumbai your beter get your reality lens re calibrated.
I think you’ll find there are a lot more than you are assuming. I personaly don’t do that because I don’t have a smart phone gadget thingy, but I would say that most tweets I see are made by people out and about wherever they happen to be and that includes packpackers andpeople in places like India, which is a pretty industrialised place, but I’m sure you knew that already.
I agree w. Harry Nuts (that sounds weird)
A lot of reading… “CNN just reported this or that” So if you aren’t near a TV it is a good distribution tool, but very raw and definitely not authoritative. I didn’t enjoy reading about Jewish conspiracy theories (@joop) while trying to figure out what was going on.
I doubt there were many, if any, 1st hand people there with better info. than what AP reported.
And agreed… lets also have some thoughts for the victims of these awful attacks.
And you get enormous number of the tweets that are shameless plugs of their websites/blogs ..
Well this is true yes… There is a certain amount of manual filtering required depending on who you are following.
We’ve developed a useful tool to monitor what’s being said live on Twitter concerning Mumbai attack:
http://tweetag.com/Mumbai
You’ll get directly what are the most talked topics related to the attack (without having to read every single tweet with #mumbai hashtag)
Twitter should be congratulated for placing the attacks in the correct city this time. Last time everyone was raving about how Twitter was great as a news source, it was reporting the Chinese earthquake - in Beijing, hundreds of miles away from the correct location in Sichuan.
And we still haven’t got a clear answer to how the news can be broken to you via Twitter if to get to it you have to search for “mumbai”, which you wouldn’t have a reason to do unless you already knew about the bombings. (I did click the search links, by the way. No commentary more interesting than “this is a sad day”, no information more pressing than you couldn’t get from rolling news coverage.)
“Mumbai was attacked” is only a tiny part of the news, and really, the least important part. The part that matters is: who, why and how. Once you know those you can go to the opinion and briefing pages and the big questions like “how can we prevent it happening again?” Those questions require someone you can trust and more than 140 characters.
Perhaps Twitter can be useful for that primary industry of “what happened”. But primary industries are *boring*. Crop planting is boring, mining is boring, “Mumbai was attacked” is boring (unless you’ve got relatives there, in which case you should be on your phone to them, not Twitter). What people are interested in is food on their plate, buildings to live in and how the bombings will affect government policy.
With 10 or 20 twitter accounts, anyone can hijack an event
“breaking news : I’ve just seen steve jobs in the hospital” …
The first news I heard of the attacks I picked up from twitter way before I saw it on main stream news.
I guess mainstream news check the facts first
Google
\Google\
window.location(’www.google.com’)
No Michael it’s you that doesn’t get it. News organisations and journalists have to verify things before they put them out on the air or online. It’s called ethical behaviour.
And get it through your thick skull that compared to normal news outlets Twitter et al have a minute number of viewers!
Christ!!
Great post on all this: http://www.madebymany.co.uk/mu.....tion-00344
Who cares what “they” are saying?
I am from Mumbai, and I was amazed at how many other people were tweeting about Mumbai this morning
But yes, I’d say twitter is an awesome news ‘Aggregator’…probably not a source (yet)
youre are right indeed
Twitter is also like to emerge as an integral part of emergency managements systems for certain corporations. This idea has already been explored, but is likely to mature and become viable soon. This is service that Twitter could obviously monetize, especially if it provides some additional services targeting this niche.
Twitter might not be a very reliable news source, but I was able to catch a couple of tweets from people in Mumbai, reporting almost minute by minute what was happening there.
I also saw a request pop up constantly, of someone who wanted to know what happened to a wedding party from one of the hotels. This morning, another tweet kept repeating “everyone from the party is fine”.
And I rarely use Twitter. But was I witnessed yesterday, not in the CNN news or other news networks, but in Twitter and Flickr, was amazing.
It depends on whether you value immediacy more than depth. Twitter can let you know that something *just* happened, but apart from the niftiness of getting information at this speed, is that really all that valuable?
If you’re not going to be taking any action, or making any decisions based on the information, it really doesn’t matter how soon you’re informed.
I just called Some People at home, (he was still in bed), and he was like you know man.. I don’t know.. I just can’t get my head around all this Twitter as a news source thing. He did concede that Twitter was a great way to get a message out fast and if the dude sending the tweet is reliable then yeah it is getting closer - but you know how he is - he never can totally get with the program. You can call him if you want (713) 555-1212 but he did say he was going to go read the newspaper.
Cheers - Eric
Inspired by India case, now I start a twitter reporting on Thailand uprising situation: @thailandreport
The video that made me cry http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=4ksiue4A39o
Twitter is good but just not a Facebook or Myspace. It still needs some updates to do. I like facebook because I can communicate with groups and blog.
The only thing worth watching on Twitter is BreakingNewsOn. I really could care less if so-and-so and has heard an explosion. I want real reporting.
News… yes, maybe sometimes. Noise, also.
Yea, for people who can’t navigate to any good news website, or have a TV at their home OR had someone in their IM contacts to tell them about the attacks OR someone in their family or friends or relatives didn’t tell them.. then twitter might be worth a source.
But for me.. twitter comes LAST out of all news sources I know. Why the hell would any sane person want to read lines of 140 characters for news coverage of such an important issue and not turn on his TV!