You can’t deny social media has already left a lasting impression on the way we use the Internet. When the Internet was created, it was an open-platform for sharing information to a worldwide audience. Fast forward a few years later and you’ll find computers got relatively cheap. I won’t go into the Economics of it at this minute, but instead talk about the huge news companies. Now, you’re probably thinking; why am I comparing cheap computers to huge news companies? Audience.
Once products go cheap, consumers purchase them. And nothing changed with the computer. Larger audiences mean big companies pay attention as it usually means big profits for them. When the huge companies hit the Internet, they took their traditional newspaper/TV brands and transferred them to online format. It was a change for the better at the time when news wasn’t added to the Internet for maybe days after an event occurred. Now, with the major news companies on the web, breaking news could be delivered to a reader within minutes, in some cases even seconds. But who knows… maybe the news was censored… not the full story? Bias towards the news company?
And this is where the social media revolution comes to play. Social media wasn’t created just for news. It’s alternative name is Web 2.0, but I try not to say that too often because it sounds stupid. Anyway, social networks we’re the predecessors to social media for the fact that they allowed people to share information freely, to their friends, relatives or even strangers. Now, with social news sites like Digg, people can upload articles, videos and a whole range of content to a large audience who can add their opinion to the content by digging it up or burying it.
Twitter, founded in 2006 has only recently hit mainstream.
But
Digg is a large-scale website that filters out a lot of
niche content added by users, but don’t have a large enough audience that is appreciative of that content. And this is where
Twitter comes in. Twitter was created in 2006 in San Francisco, California as a social network for micro-blogging. Not too long ago,
Twitter was
relatively niche, secluded to the web’s techies. It’s original function was micro-blogging, in other words a replacement for the blog when you didn’t have enough time to post to a blog. It only takes under 30 seconds to create a
‘tweet’ and post it to your ‘followers’ and a larger public audience.
With Twitter you can chat with celebrities without going through loopholes to get to them. You can chat with strangers, and meet alike people. And this is why it has recently taken the world by storm. Only around a week ago, user @aplusk (a.k.a. Ashton Kutcher) reached another major milestone for the relevance of Twitter by reaching 1 million followers. Kutcher created a media storm by publicly advertising a ‘battle to 1 million’ with traditional news giant CNN and their @cnnbrk (CNN Breaking News) account. Kutcher won, and celebrated by sending the message that ‘the people have talked, and the social news revolution has begun where people can get uncensored news without resorting to the major news channels’.
Twitter in fact has recently been mentioned on the radio more than other, more popular social networks such as Facebook and MySpace, and has had it’s submit buttons added to a majority of traditional news websites so users can share an article with their followers.
Ashton Kutcher recently archived 1 million followers.
But one of Twitter’s greatest uses, as mentioned before, is news.
Breaking news is tweeted by it’s users on to the service almost immediately following an event. One example that I know that happened is when a series of earthquakes occurred here in
Melbourne, Australia. Twitter’s #Melbourne
hashtag swarmed with news of the earthquake, and it took at least 30 minutes for the first major news website to pick up the incident and post a brief [and I mean brief, uninformative] article. It took over an hour for the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to post up the incident and it took over an hour and a half for the major news websites to write up a proper, half-informative article when compared to what was already available on Twitter.
They even had Twitter as a source!
But it’s not all negative for news companies. They have an extra constantly-updated source they can add to their list, providing good, usually accurate information from the public to a greater, already established audience. I, personally don’t think Twitter will ever reach the audience that the news companies have available to them at the moment. And this is where news companies have to allow Twitter to act as a news source, so information posted on the service can reach the wider audience. Then the people can actually have a say on the news instead of been locked away by the traditional sources. Now that Twitter has hit mainstream, this dream is now possible.