Can Twitter and Facebook save journalism? I think someone better be a damn good journalist to have a large following on one of these social networking sites. Usually the successful bloggers who start their career online are people like Perez Hilton and Nik Richie. But who would have thought that Perez Hilton would have such great success from his celebrity gossip blog. Or that Nik Richie would earn millions by creating thedirty.com, a site that allows people to post pictures and talk shit about their enemies online.
If I want to become famous by creating an online persona, do I have to be a shit talker? Do I need to neglect all of my journalism skills and draw a penis on a celebrity's face (aka Perez Hilton) to make a buck? Well apparently, I can be the next Anderson Cooper and when my show gets canceled I can just start a Twitter account and call it day. 
Yes, I think it's important for journalists to have Twitter and Facebook and all that social networking shiz but I don't think it's going to "save journalism." Everyone has such a utopian perspective about this site and frankly I think it's kind of dumb. Yes, having 60,000 followers on Twitter is going to boost your readership but I think your main audience is actually subscribing to your newspaper/magazine or watching/listening to your news show.
For instance, I follow NPR and CNN on Twitter but I rarely get updates from these people. And when I do, I ignore them because they are coming from a massive RSS feed (aka there is no one behind the message). I enjoy listening to NPR on the radio and I'm praying that I don't have to check Twitter to get my news updates. Can we all get a moment of silence for this small chronic break. But really, Twitter might help us a little but it's not going to save journalism.
Leave a comment