8 Comments

Summary:

The rise of social media tools such as blogs and Twitter have changed the political landscape, in part by speeding up the news cycle and broadening the range of sources that are available. But are these developments good or bad for the practice of political journalism?

Birdhouses
photo: See-ming Lee

With the Republican National Convention getting underway in Florida this week, the volume of political coverage is likely to explode, and therefore so is the volume of posts to Twitter and other social networks — something that was much more of a niche phenomenon during the last election campaign in 2008. While posting to Twitter was commonplace on the various candidate buses and at political events at that time, a political reporter for BuzzFeed says “now Twitter is the bus.” As a recent post at Politico noted, the hyper-connected and real-time nature of the political cycle now means that stories can emerge and get circulated almost everywhere with lightning speed, and that has changed the nature of the game. But is it good or bad for journalism?

The Politico piece, about an incident on Friday involving presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, calls it the “21-minute news cycle.” As Dylan Byers describes it, Romney made a comment at a campaign stop in Michigan about how no one had ever asked him for his birth certificate — a crack that appeared to refer to the controversial “birther” debate over where President Barack Obama was born. Within a matter of seconds, a reporter attending the event had posted the remark to Twitter, where it was then retweeted hundreds of times over the next few minutes (according to data Politico got from the Twitter-analytics service Topsy).

Political brush fires can erupt within minutes

Several minutes later, Politico and BuzzFeed had both posted items on it making the connection to the “birther” debate, and BuzzFeed had posted a video to YouTube of Romney making the statement. Within minutes, the Romney campaign had issued a comment saying the remark was taken out of context and that the candidate did not mean to dredge up the birth certificate issue again — a statement that was followed quickly by one from the Obama camp, which accused Romney of doing exactly that. Over the next few hours the news made its way to TV news shows and elsewhere, but most of the heat from the incident had more or less died down by the end of the day, and Byers noted that the event is a perfect example of how things have changed:

“Four years ago, the fallout from a controversial remark would have taken hours, if not a full day, to unfold. In 2012, social media, which enables reporters to file in real-time and puts increased pressure on campaigns to speed up their response time, has brought the pace of the news cycle down to a matter of minutes and seconds. The ‘one-day story’ — itself an archaic term in the 21st century — has become the one-hour story.”

This phenomenon is something we discussed at the paidContent 2012 conference in New York earlier this year, during a panel that I moderated with Vivian Schiller of NBC News and Josh Marshall of the political blog network Talking Points Memo. As Marshall described it, social media — including blogs such as his, which started the process that was later accelerated by Twitter and Facebook — have not only sped up the news cycle but have added new “vectors” that political analysts of all kinds have to take account of. In other words, instead of just paying attention to the New York Times and one or two political talk shows, everyone has to pay attention to Twitter as well, and to new sources of political content such as BuzzFeed and Huffington Post.

virus signYou could argue that the tendency for inconsequential or even irrelevant incidents to get blown out of proportion has increased thanks to Twitter and the appearance of “viral content” sites like BuzzFeed (which has been making a big push into the political sphere since it hired former Politico writer Ben Smith) and that is probably true. But then, such incidents also got blown out of proportion by television talk shows and news programs and newspaper columnists before blogs and Twitter and Facebook came along. In many ways, all those tools have done is speed up and enhance a process that has been under way for decades.

Irrelevant stories also burn out faster

During our conversation in June about social media and political coverage, Schiller also argued that the speed with which Twitter and other networks operate can be beneficial as well — since it can help defuse or tamp down an incorrect or ridiculous report that might otherwise have taken hours or even days to disprove through traditional media channels. As Byers noted in his story, the Romney comment might have turned into a multiple-day issue, as newspapers picked it up and it worked its way through the usual sources of political commentary, but instead it was mostly out of gas within a few hours. As reporter Sasha Issenberg put it:

“These little stories catch fire on Twitter more quickly than they did even with bloggers in 2008, but it also means that they burn out faster.”

There’s another element of Twitter and social media that could be beneficial during an election campaign, and that is the way that such tools allow for sources directly connected to events to comment and affect the news flow — something that could help alleviate the “pack journalism” effect that Jeff Jarvis and others have complained about, in which thousands of reporters congregate at a single event and repeat the same kinds of information over and over. Sociologist Zeynep Tufekci has written about how social media can be an effective tool to combat this phenomenon during events such as the “Arab Spring” revolutions in Egypt and elsewhere, because it allows other non-traditional sources to become part of the narrative.

This phenomenon of having “the sources go direct,” as blogging pioneer Dave Winer has described it, is probably one of the biggest disruptive effects that Twitter has introduced into political journalism — and its impact, both positive and negative, is only going to become more obvious as the nation gets closer to the election. Whether it is primarily good or bad depends a lot on your perspective. Is it bad because there is more sound and fury that signifies nothing, or is it good because irrelevant stories burn themselves out more quickly and the sources of information have become broader?

Post and thumbnail images courtesy of Flickr users See-ming Lee and Nils Geylen

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. PCCare247 Reviews Tuesday, August 28, 2012

    I think it is good. It keeps people aware of the latest happenings in the political arena.

  2. markleiser.phd.law Tuesday, August 28, 2012

    Reblogged this on #Hashtag – Thoughts on Law, Technology, the Internet, and Social Media and commented:
    Is Twitter good or bad for political journalism?
    The rise of social media tools such as blogs and Twitter have changed the political landscape, in part by speeding up the news cycle and broadening the range of sources that are available. But are these developments good or bad for the practice of political journalism?

  3. I go with good, at least for most stories. It allows the people who care to get the info but maybe it saves me – who could care less about up to minute updates – maybe two or three useless stories or minutes on TV.

    And the broadening of sources is a no brainer good, of course. Jarvis is great on this about the convention right now, and it’s a perfect example.

  4. political journalism is part of the distraction industry, as are political campaigns ..

    business as usual continues on

    twitter? social media? part of the same distraction industry …. with the exception that, like all communication technologies, it can be used by the intelligent, as well as the manipulative, and the ignorant ..

  5. Q: “Is Twitter good or bad for political journalism?”

    A: Yes.

    Another edition of SATSQ.

    This is sort of the “are blogs destroying journalism?” argument with a new platform.

  6. Bryan Bondurant Tuesday, August 28, 2012

    Just this week I decided to stop using Twitter, to dump it. Facebook and twitter are both so big now one might as well just use the internet itself. The whole “Follow Me On” whatever tagline and branding confuses your customers and effects your seo in a negative way.

    The main reason to dump twitter is all the nonsense, fake accounts, and internet spam. Look at all the fake accounts now, millions and millions. I just don’t have time to deal with the nonsense. There is also the issue of short posts which are not journalism, just quick typing, mostly irrelevant nonsense.

    The question should be “Is the internet good for journalism?” and that answer is YES. Twitter? I don’t need no stinking twitter, or any other dead bird.

  7. Ribeekah Grant Tuesday, August 28, 2012

    Twitter keeps me informed on what is happening in real time. I like that. And even if the information turns out to be incorrect, it’s quickly corrected in real time. A lot of fluff can be eliminated by selected a few good political journalists or sites to follow. Twitter keeps me informed on the most current issues. I like it.

  8. good n bad twitter is

Comments have been disabled for this post