Journalists exploring the use of social networks may wonder whether it makes more sense for them to be on Facebook or Twitter. Short answer: The two networks serve different purposes and different audiences, and you probably want to be on both.
The culture of Facebook is primarily about making connections with people one has actually known. This, combined with the fact that Facebook has a more standard commenting model, means that Facebook is much more "conversational" than Twitter.
Twitter users, in contrast, tend to follow people (or organizations) based on interestingness, rather than pre-existing associations. People "follow" others on Twitter in the same way they'd bookmark an interesting web site - whether one knows or has known the person one is following is not important. And because Twitter's commenting model is half-baked (face it - it's really tough to have an ongoing conversation on Twitter), the service tends to be more oriented towards "broadcasting" ideas than about conversation (though there is some of that too).
Every Twitter post has a "permalink" page, just like a standard blog entry does. But unlike a typical blog, there's no way for a user to leave a comment "attached" to that entry. I have no idea why this is, but the absence of the feature severely limits the kinds of conversations that can be had on Twitter (public replies and direct messages are no replacement for a thread firmly grounded to an original post).
Facebook is really hundreds of applications rolled into one monster service. Twitter, in contrast, is laser-focused on one particular task - micro-blogging of brief observations, analysis, news, etc. Combined with Twitter's
excellent search engine, you'll probably find Twitter a better place to keep up on news and track developing stories.
Finally, the streamlined nature of Twitter means it works much better on smartphones and in the dedicated desktop clients used by news junkies.
However, Facebook is so deeply entrenched in the high school and college scenes that it's essential to have a presence there if you want to connect with those audiences. Facebook is also an excellent place to research stories that touch younger people's lives, or to develop contacts inside high schools, for example. However, much of the data in Facebook remains hidden from the casual reporter until one is "Friended" by a user. The vast majority of Twitter profiles, in contrast, are wide open.
Nutshell version: Being where your audience is means being on both platforms. And by "being there" I mean actively participating - not just signing up for an account and hoping for some kind of magic to happen. For both platforms, you need to think in terms of production and consumption -- using the services both for story research and for broadcasting opinions, analysis, and links back to your publication.
Comments
1) Linda Johnson, March 9, 2009 at 1:12 p.m. [Link]
Hey Scot,
Great timing on this. I'm wondering how newsrooms, ever-shrinking newsrooms at that, are managing to weave FB and Twitter into reporting and/or editing processes. We do a pretty good job (of late) of posting breaking news when we send out other forms of alerts and with RSS feeds, but little in between.
Does this make sense? Who is using both well?
2) Jeremy Rue, March 10, 2009 at 4:37 p.m. [Link]
Hi Linda,
I pretty much agree with what is said on this blog about how newspapers should Twitter:
http://newassignment.net/blog/tom_cheredar/oct2008/25/how_should_newsp
I think this quote says it all: "I'm more likely to be responsive to humans," said Gerard Barberi a social researcher who is active in many online communities.
And I don't think Twitter or Facebook alone will garner lots of readers. Even if you have thousands of followers, I would suspect only a small percentage will be directed back to your site.
Rather, I think the value of social networks lies in finding a direct connection with readers and the community. I love Twitter for it's networking capabilities, particularly with the news industry. It keeps me informed, and it's another venue to learn about what's happening in the world.
I just think newspapers should be a part of that.
3) Scot Hacker, March 11, 2009 at 10:57 a.m. [Link]
I totally agree Jeremy. For me, this comes back to the old Cluetrain Manifesto (http://www.cluetrain.com/) creeedo, "Markets are conversations." The important thing is to humanize your newsroom, to humanize the connections between journalists and their audiences. To acknowledge that the old top-down voice-from-the-mountain approach to journalism is migrating to a more heterarchical model where journalists and their audience are on the same playing field. That doesn't mean journalists don't have more to offer (training, research, fact checking, dedication/time, etc.) than the audience does, but it does mean that we're all using the same megaphone... and it's a two-way megaphone.
Also, journalists need to be where their audience is. And the audience is spending a heck of a lot of time on social networks -- time which detracts from time spent on your publication's site. If you're not there alongside your audience, participating in the social, you may as well be invisible to them (this applies especially to younger generations of potential readers).
To me, it just makes sense for managers and editors to tell their staffs they should be spending 30 minutes a day participating in whatever social networks are popular at the moment, in both research and broadcast mode, working within the social networks as educated participants. Yes, the SNs can be marketing tools to boost the brand, but the presence you create should not *feel* like marketing - otherwise you'll turn people away rather than attract them.
4) Chris Speight, June 2, 2009 at 8:58 a.m. [Link]
Overall I think Twitter is a much better medium for public outreach, Facebook is just too closed. It's great for getting in contact with friends, but the only public feature is pages, something only big companies seem to get really anything done with.
5) Love Fabillar, June 19, 2009 at 11:42 a.m. [Link]
That's correct, Twitter and Facebook are not the same, if really analyzed.
Twitter is less "profiley", while Facebook definitely is. With Twitter you can simply do any sort of update about what you're currently up to, without having to worry about adding any more pictures into your albums, or checking tagged photos, Facebook on the other hand, does.
Add your comment
Login to post a comment.