My favorite part of this week's reading was this quote from Jennifer Gish, a sports columnist from Times-Union:
“The downside to putting email addresses out there, of course, is that people are a lot braver when they get in front of computers than they are when they dial their phones," she said, "so the discourse isn’t always as fruitful or respectful.”
It's incredibly easy to get in touch with your favorite journalist these days. And even if you don't actually speak to them, Twitter gives the impression that you're at least moderately acquainted. But the internet makes people brave, even when that bravery is tethered to something trivial.
Part of me wonders if serious discussions have any place on Twitter. I can't imagine that many genuinely helpful pieces of constructive criticism have been delivered via tweet. But attempts to publicly humiliate someone are an hourly occurrence.
That being said, I love Twitter. The medium itself is a perfect for small talk and up-to-the-minute journalism. But after reading this week's homework, I wonder how often journalists should interact with their followers. Do we only acknowledge the positive stuff, completely ignoring the negative?
I share that opinion. I've tweeted for years; just to announce the journal and I think the only way I could discuss anything serious would be with links--I think the Boston Globe uses it effectively with links for articles. I suspect I would be mortified by stalkers as discussed in class. I've been on Facebook for years and post several times daily. I'm more at home there.
ReplyDelete