It wouldn’t be too far off to say it has sports journalists all a-Twitter…that is, some embrace it, like Ian Rapoport of the Boston Herald and Chris Gasper of the Boston Globe while others, mostly veterans, are afraid…Afraid they’d never figure it out, afraid they wouldn’t be very good at it…Well, guess what?…The readers love it!
They love being an “insider”…Following their favorite writer, their favorite athlete, their favorite team…Finding out information before anyone else…Being able to tell their friends,” Shalise Manza Young just tweeted Darius Butler was cut by the Patriots”… And that’s the only thing we should care about….How can we serve the fans…
Twitter has become the new rolodex, the new email…But it’s also the best thing that ever happened to sports journalists from a marketing point of view…Bylines are constant…Every tweet starts with @so and so…Even before you read the tweet, you’re identifying with its author…If you’re following your favorite writers, bloggers, columnists, you’re device is alerting you at a frenetic pace…
At our initial seminar at this year’s Boston University Sports Journalism Series, Rapoport was asked about what seemed like an endless stream of postings, on this day totaling no less than twelve in a twenty four hour period, and we hadn’t played a game yet! Said Rapoport, “…It’s great cause people know they can go right there and read all about it and get analysis. But it kind of captures you a little bit because you know you have to go and update it all the time”
But tweeting all the time put Rapoport in an uneasy position back in July when he “filed” from the Myra Kraft funeral…Gasper, for one, took exception not so much at the intent but more so at the way it was presented; “For me it was as much the tone as the use of Twitter. This was not the Oscars, this was not the Grammys, somebody had passed away here. To me there’s a certain tone that needs to be condoned”…”I don’t think it was inappropriate at all, countered Rapoport, maybe because of where I was sitting but as far as I saw I was covering the news respectfully and this was an event. This was my job to disseminate what was going on”
As is usually the case with new technology, new philosophy, the lines get blurred…How far can i go?…Where will this get me?… It sometimes can be a “write/post/tweet it now, we’ll worry about whether or not it’s correct later” situation but it’s called progress folks…We’re overloaded, sure….we’re bombarded, of course….But just like you didn’t have to listen (radio), didn’t have to watch (tv), now, you don’t have to follow…Bust for those of us who do, it beats waiting for the paper to be delivered or the six and eleven o’clock news…embrace it!
13 Comments
josh posted on September 9, 2011 at 3:23 pm
The discussion on twitter was not all sunshine and lollipops in my opinion. Although I definitely got the, embrace it or die a slow journalistic death vibe, I also saw caution in the discussion. For the most part both speakers praised twitter and the new techniques it puts at reporters fingertips, but knowing when and where to wield that power is still being worked out.
As Chris Gasper mentioned, something like who’s at Myra Kraft’s funeral could probably wait until after the funeral has ended. Yet, Ian Rapaport “felt the need to get it out.” Is the speed at which a certain story must get out a negative by product of twitter or just a matter of opinion from reporter to reporter?
Yes, twitter is a new and powerful tool that allows information to get out faster and the reader to be more informed, but at what cost? Both speakers hinted at the fact that being right isn’t as important as being fast, but as journalists isn’t being right what we are supposed to do? In the comment section of the twitter: killing sports journalism 140 characters at a time author Seth comments, “Your credibility is all you have as a reporter. Screw that up, and you’re nowhere.” Are we as reporters willing to sacrifice this accuracy so we can be the first to break a story? No reader is generally aware of who breaks a story first, but they will most likely remember the bad information they received and from whom they received it.
I personally don’t like it when you have to rely so heavily on one thing, such as twitter. When your device is “surgically attached”, as Chris Gasper put it, what happens when Murphy’s law kicks in? However, I know I must adapt or die so I’m stitching my phone to my hand as soon as I’m done here.
Craig Meyer posted on September 9, 2011 at 5:19 pm
For what seemed like the longest time, I was extremely apprehensive of Twitter, even to the point where I don’t have today (seemingly the only aspiring sports journalist without one, I guess). I always wondered what value or substance could come from a 140 character snapshot as nothing more than a trend. But as time has passed, I have realized the true value of Twitter as an outlet for journalism and breaking news, with the discussion last night strengthening that belief. In an age when news needs to come as fast as possible to a hungry and eager public, Twitter is the perfect entity — due to the character restrictions, news is fast, concise and it reaches a wide, inter-connected audience. It also gives journalists another direct outlet to players, and fans a direct line of communication to both athletes and journalists. However, with this kind of rapid fire news that Twitter helps enable, it also places a greater responsibility and added pressure on journalists themselves, as Rapoport and Gasper both mentioned. At least for now, the days of a reporter’s job being limited to getting quotes from players, covering games and writing stories seem to be over. Those journalists now, if they want to stay relevant, effectively have to have their phones, as the guests put it, “surgically attached” to themselves in order to keep up with every piece of breaking news and to keep readers and followers updated on every little aspect that surrounds a team they cover. The feeling that Rapoport mentioned about getting out of the shower and finding out a trade just happened is something I can relate to, and although it is a small anecdote, it serves to remind us all just what kind of a powerful tool Twitter is and just how it is changing the very pace and foundation of journalism.
Rick Sobey posted on September 11, 2011 at 11:31 pm
It is absolutely remarkable how far journalism has advanced in only five years. Listening to Chris Gasper and Ian Rapoport discuss twitter and blogs, I thought about my first high school journalism class in 2006 and how those two words were not present. My teacher taught us the basics, such as how to put together an article and how to layout a newspaper, but twitter and blogs were nowhere to be found in the class.
Fast forward a few years, the journalism world is completely different, and the blueprint is constantly changing. When Rapoport was talking about working 24/7 and telling his partner when he would take a shower, I couldn’t believe it. Is it that important to be the first one to a breaking story?
I don’t really care who gets the story first; I just want to know what’s going on and that the information is accurate. If the writer I regularly go to is 30 minutes late on the story, it is not going to bother me. It’s not going to make me stop reading a reporter. As long as I enjoy their writing style and their information is fair and accurate, then I will keep going back to them. So at the end of the day, basic journalism skills will attract me to such and such a writer and publication, and the fast-paced breaking news is actually not that essential.
The one aspect about twitter that I think is phenomenal is the quicker and easier access to athletes. Before, journalists needed to go through layers upon layers of public relations to have access to athletes, but now the gates have been opened. For example, in the blackboard article about Robert Mathis, a blogger named Nate Dunlevy tweeted Mathis, and the NFL player responded to him. How cool and convenient is that? I’ve had some frustrating situations with going through public relations to talk with public figures, and easier access, like twitter, would have been very helpful for those articles.
I was disappointed when Rapoport was tweeting at the funeral this past summer. I understand how some of his audience would be interested in who is attending, but why can’t that information be reported in the hours after the funeral? Who is sitting at their computer demanding such information? There are correct times to tweet and inappropriate times to tweet, and this instance was definitely inappropriate. I know I wouldn’t want people tweeting away at my funeral.
Tyler Murray and Lee Feiner posted on September 12, 2011 at 4:43 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewO3HEpN-Sw
Caroline posted on September 12, 2011 at 9:17 pm
“why are we studying this issue?”
The one scary thing about Twitter is that there are no boundaries. Anyone can say anything. Doesn’t it take away from the dignity or prestige of journalism? Yes, I think it is amazing how the public can receive information so fast now and I do think it is a new and improved way for journalist to get their name out there and use a different style of writing to share the news, but it does scare me that it is constant. There is no deadline, there is no newscasts, this is the new world of journalism. There is no rest for the weary in the twitter posting world, we saw that with Ian Rapoport who had to check his phone during the seminar to keep updated then went to starbucks across the street to tweet and blog to his followers immediately after he left class. It is a 24/7 job, on call all the time.
Twitter also brings a more personal feel to journalism as the writer can be in full contact with the people who follow them. It can be great for the writer to create a loyal base of followers. Yet as a follower I would be concerned with twitter in the fact of news judgement since it is a free-for-all in the twitter world we have to build a trust with the writers to believe what they are saying is true.
What I learned is that the new age of journalism has come down too how fast journalist can get the news out to their followers. And we as followers can’t get enough, we love it, and want more even faster.
Joe Parello posted on September 13, 2011 at 9:19 am
I really thought this discussion on twitter came back to a basic journalistic question. That being, what is newsworthy? Well, thanks to twitter, the spectrum of “newsworthy” events had widened as “followers” demand more and more information from those they trust as experts and insiders.
Is this a good thing? I think yes and no. On one hand, like both Gasper and Rapoport said, it allows them to add some context to their work and gives them a forum to post tidbits of information that may not have fit into any of the pieces they were working on. Though these pieces of information may not be “newsworthy” in a traditional sense, they are to people extremely invested in a sport or team, and give insight into the lives of people most of the general public will never meet.
On the other hand, I think it can lead to a situation like Rapoport at the funeral, where I believe the need to continually spew out information with little or no filter won out over his better judgment and caused him to send out some tweets that I would consider in poor taste. You also have to question, with the need to break a story first, how good is the information on twitter, even from respected sources. I still remember Bernie Miklasz of the St. Louis Post Dispatch tweeting that basketball coach Matt Painter was leaving Purdue for Missouri. This came as a huge shock to me as a Purdue fan, and, oddly enough, to Matt Painter.
All that being said, I agree with both guests when they say that twitter isn’t going anywhere, or at least something twitter-esque. It has its up side: quick information all gathered in one place. But it also has the down sides of not having a filter and perhaps putting too much pressure on “insiders” to tweet everything happening around them. It can be a powerful tool as long as you think before you tweet.
Lacey posted on September 13, 2011 at 9:29 am
When Ian and Chris came in to speak with our class, I felt that they had a good balance and understanding of how to utilize Twitter: First as a reporting tool and secondly as a means of self promotion.
Regarding Twitter as a way of communicating the thoughts of players, coaches and team personnel instantly, there is the benefit of not having to wait, gratification within seconds so to speak.
“News” can now be delivered without much thought, simply typing, clicking and sending. A Tweet can be completed in a matter of seconds, a huge risk that can reap high rewards; or an erroneous message that can deplete the credibility and appreciation of the writer.
When someone is capable, as Twitter has now made so, people have a tendency to push the boundaries without much thought following what they are saying or projecting. Where does the editing process come in? Does it every? With Twitter, it appears that self-examination is a thing of the ages with the rare few people that are attempting to break news on Twitter examining their words and reports before letting the small, but often loaded message flit off into the universe.
I would quantify this action as a serious and egregious fault. And worse still is that the public accepts these Tweets as real reporting.
Beyond the faulty reporting and journalism that are associated with Twitter at times, Ian had mentioned that this social media is a great way for people to self-promote. As a journalist, is that more important now than reporting-making sure that you are seen and heard without saying much of anything anymore?
And if that is the mind set of a respected journalist/reporter, a professional with years under his belt-is self promotion the next step in a career? If so, then what happens to actual reporting? I find this to be the conundrum: Twitter is free PR in the hands of those that want more quicker. More publicity, more marketing, more attention. Twitter is a narcissist’s dream. Reporters appear more concerned now with harnessing the power Twitter brings to them, which ultimately pumps up their egos over actually breaking news and being journalists. When did reporters try to become the subject?
Chris had also mentioned how Twitter has a spawned an ideal of instantaneous gratification from both reporters, athletes, the public, etc. No one has time or patience to wait for substantial news. Waiting is a thing of the past–which is understandle, but what if waiting a few minutes longer meant getting real news? Twitter has eliminated editors, which in turn has eliminated common sense, which has decreased the production of real news.
Also, what better way to satisfy the public on Twitter than to engage them with interactive propositions and questions. Take for example writer Peter King: he has taken to Twitter in remarkable fashion, posting quirky statements, sending zingers back and forth to people that egg him on and even sent out inquiries to his followers asking what avatar of his dog he should use. He, in essence, has plateaued his Tweets into a game show, making his account a bridge between his life and the public’s.
Marketing is Twitter’s greatest ability. Not news casting. What the Tweets really give people is a glimpse or a mere taste of actual news. How can you inform people with a limited number of characters? Can a reporter really tell a story of importance through a Tweet? No.
But, what they can do is generate interest in themselves and get followers to read their stories or watch their broadcasts online through links that ultimately direct them away from Twitter.
I have no problem with Twitter as a source of marketing and promotion, what a wonderful way to express yourself without being censored. But, like any double edged sword, people using Twitter really ought to be careful how they are wielding this medium…the flimsy excuse that your account was hacked seems to be flying out faster than the Tweets being sent.
Patrick Hazel posted on September 13, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Twitter. To put it simply, this is as real as it gets. It is also as real as it can possibly get. When I think of the relationship between an athlete and a person who is interviewing them before or after a game, I think of boundaries. Bouncing off of what Caroline said, there are honestly no boundaries when it comes to a tweet. It is as genuine and honest as a person can be, as twitter gives a person the opportunity to post exactly what they want, when they want, and how they want.
When an athlete is in an interview, they may try to play within the lines. Also, a reporter’s job is to dig deep and get that story that no one else can dig out. For example, when a reporter would ask me last year about us facing a #1 seed as a #16 seed, I could not genuinely and honestly say what I wanted to say. I was held to just saying “I respect the team we are playing, and we will play hard.” Of course I want to say we will win, but that would stir up too much controversy.
When we think of twitter, countless athletes and individuals have gotten into trouble by posting EXACTLY how they feel or think of a situation.
Twitter has changed the journalism world so much. It has turned journalism into a 24 hour job, as Ian told us in class last week. You have to be on top of your game to deliver the latest, most breaking news. And you have an identity and personality that your followers can connect with. As a sports journalist, your twitter name and profile represent you, your work, your organization, your followers, and the fans of the sports team you work with.
Twitter connects a very long bridge to the gap between athletes, fans, journalists, reporters and normal everyday tweeters. This immersion and connection is unparalleled with its authenticity and genuine honesty.
Nick posted on September 13, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Twitter has always been a confusing and frustrating thing for me. I’ve never embraced it despite my friends’ persistence, and I probably never will. It’s easy to see the usefulness of the medium for journalists and reporters who need to disperse news quickly, and for fans it’s an easy way to reach out to idols they would have no opportunity to talk to.
I have a few faults with Twitter, however. The first is that everyone can use it and everyone can see it. Every week it seems that another athlete has made a fool of himself or herself by saying something they shouldn’t have on Twitter. Fans on the other hand have become faceless bullies to everyone and everything, motivated by the approval of other angry fans. Twitter can turn the sparkling reputation of an athlete into one of an uneducated buffoon and mobilize anger and negativity in what used to be an innocent fan base.
The second is that Twitter speak is so confusing to understand. With constant retweets and witty hash tags, it’s hard to make out what’s being said out of the already paltry 160-character message. It’s especially annoying to see tweets referenced on SportsCenter, on the news, and even in the newspaper. There’s nothing more awkward than listening to a trained journalist struggle through a poorly worded and abbreviated tweet on air, but that’s the way journalism works these days. Instead of contacting sources or talking directly to a player, more and more journalists are becoming lazy and depend on player tweets to create news stories.
Finally, everyone praises Twitter’s ability to share news instantaneously. Many major stories have been broken via Twitter, which is great, but after a couple of minutes of “breaking news,” that news gets very old. Ordinary folks retweeting and relaying news to their followers floods the news stream. On the night Osama bin Laden was killed, it was funny to see thousands upon thousands of tweets saying the terrorist was dead, as though no one had knew the story already. Everyone flocked to Twitter just to tweet the “news” and read everyone else’s “news.” After a few minutes, Twitter wasn’t a way of breaking a story – it was a way to get a pat on the back for saying something funny or insightful.
Going hand in hand with that, the flood of “news” fosters misinformation. On the night this summer when it appeared the NFL CBA would be passed only to be delayed by the players, it was interesting to keep an eye on the social media. Around 9:00 pm it appeared that the CBA would pass, and Twitter blew up with relieved fans. By 10, word of the players unsatisfaction with the deal lead to widespread grief with the owners and the realization that football was very far away. Despite that, joyous tweets of the CBA getting passed were still being published well past midnight. If a person were to read those tweets without knowing the situation, they would be completely misinformed.
Just like Professor Shorr said in class, I too believe that Twitter has hit its apex and the fad is on its way down. Millions of people have opened an account, tweeted a few times, and then forgotten about it. Pretty soon, only the diehards will remain and if no one new is reading the tweets, eventually the allure of Twitter will fade for them too.
In the meantime, I think Twitter is a site that should only be utilized by professionals who know what they’re doing. A tweet in a journalist’s hands is a very valuable thing, while in an athlete, celebrity, or comedian’s hands, it’s superfluous. To the ordinary person, Twitter is altogether unnecessary because in the end, who really cares about what a random person has to say?
I can see why guys like Ian Rapoport and Chris Gaspar use Twitter the way they do because they can influence and inform thousands of people quickly, which is their job. For me, however, it’s unnecessary. Just like that random person, who cares what a broadcast journalism major like me has to say? I’d much rather share with everyone over the TV or radio.
Heidi posted on September 13, 2011 at 10:07 pm
Journalism is constantly changing and as part of the next generation of journalists, we really don’t have much choice but to embrace the changes, namely Twitter. I didn’t even jump on the Twitter bandwagon until I started the grad program here at BU, now it’s the first place I go when things happen.
I started a new internship a few weeks ago and on my first day I was told to please feel free to have your Twitter and Facebook open. Those are the biggest sources of news and they want everybody to be on top of the breaking stories. In fact, one of their previous interns broke the news about Ochocinco come to New England on the air because Ocho was tweeting about it while the show was going on one day. That was a bit of a realization. Twitter, and social networking in general, has passed what we thought it’s original purpose was, now it is a lifeline of sorts. When that notification pops up on our phones we cannot concentrate on anything else until we’ve checked it. That “but what if I miss something” mindset is permanent nowadays. Chris and Ian made that point well. It’s to the point now that you actually have to make sure someone covers you while you shower. News is happening constantly. And maybe these new ways of getting it have changed what “news” actually is. Nevertheless, the public considers it news and they expect it 24 hours a day. As journalists, it is our job to provide that whether we are pulling a story out of nowhere just to post something or it is actually something important.
I think being a younger generation really helps though. Most students these days do not remember life without the internet (I actually recall my brother and I using a typewriter for stuff but I am a little older than most of my fellow grad students). So basically, since students were not really around long before the 24 hour news network existed they don’t actually have to adjust. Twitter is fairly new but this constant information feed isn’t. Using a different outlet is just that. I think that makes a difference.
Margot posted on September 14, 2011 at 10:09 am
I have been resistant of Twitter for a long time. When it first debuted on the social media scene, I thought it was a less useful version of Facebook. Over the past year, I’ve gradually come around to the idea of Twitter. I don’t tweet, but I follow other people. Last week’s discussion solidified the fact that I need to up my Twitter game, so to speak. I still don’t love it, but I’ve resigned myself to the necessity of it.
Chris Gasper and Ian Rappaport made me aware of multiple benefits of a Twitter presence. The idea of being able to report the news instantly as well as having your name so obviously attached to a story is a powerful tool. Anyone with a smart phone, which these days is just about everyone, can update their Twitter feed every 30 seconds and have news updates from writers and news sources they choose to follow. Writers are able to develop a following, literally, with more ease then ever before because readers are able to feel like they know reporters on a more personal level.
However, I still think there are some negative aspects of Twitter. Journalists have forever been embroiled in a battle to be first, to have the story before their competition. One excellent point that Heidi made in class is that most of the readers can’t tell who is first, especially when the story breaks on Twitter because everything is constantly being retweeted. I think that Twitter can be a dangerous temptation for a journalist who wants to break a story and perhaps neglects to go through the motions of verifying sources, conversing with editors, and other things that ensure the accuracy of a story. At the end of the day, the most important thing is accuracy, it’s one of the cornerstones of journalism. I personally would rather have all of my bases covered, so to speak, then tweet my story first and have it be missing pieces.
Overall, I acquiesce that Twitter is relevant and necessary and is in many ways the future of journalism. Our generation is one that has been raised with instant gratification. Want to rent a movie? Forget going to Blockbuster, we can stream it on our tv! The pictures we take our instantly visible thanks to digital cameras, the idea of waiting to get film developed is about as relevant to us as an 8-track player. Why should the way we consume our news be any different?
David posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:22 pm
I was a laggard when it came to most social media, including Twitter, so first and foremost I found the seminar to be informative and revealing. Having said that my opinions about Twitter have not changed after listening to Ian Rapoport and Chris Gaspar.
My experience with twitter has been similar to that of Tedy Bruschi’s who admitted that he hadn’t made a tweet in the two years since he activated his account. While I have done some live blogging for class assignments and for work, daily tweeting has not become a part of my daily routine. The reason why can be exemplified by a quote from Stewart Cink in Sean Gregory’s 2009 Sports Illustrated article, “Twitter Craze is rapidly changing the face of sports.”
“I’m honored,” he (Cink) said of the size of his audience. “I respect and am grateful to everybody choosing to listen to the b.s. that I’ve put on Twitter.”
If it isn’t clear by now, my opinion is that most of what is posted on twitter is b.s.
Since the beginning of the fall 2011 semester both of the journalism textbooks I have read have emphasized the principles of accuracy, newsworthiness, proximity and timeliness among others. It seems that with Twitter, timeliness has taken precedent. Gaspar noted that with Twitter, there is a disregard for tone and newsworthiness, which was expressed in his rebuttal to Rapoport tweeting during Myra Kraft’s funeral. Gaspar said Rapoports tweets had a “red carpet” feel to them and should have focused more on who wasn’t showing up than who was, which I happened to agree with.
Rapoport was adamant about the idea that nothing would ever take over Twitter. Usually overarching claims like this one leave my mind but this got me to thinking. So for the last week I have been trying to find a scenario in which Twitter could possibly be undone. Clearly accuracy isn’t the end all be all nor is grammar, seeing how athletes butcher the English language when posting their thoughts. The Arian Foster Hamstring tweet got me to thinking whether or not there could be an image or video posted so vile that that could warrant stopping Twitters stream. In the end, posting a correction or using the “my account was hacked” excuse trumped everything that could derail the Twitter train.
Whether or not my opinions of Twitter are favorable, I realize that it will be a necessary part of the sports journalism career I am embarking on. For this reason I need to learn more about this phenomenon in spite of my feeling towards it. Again, I would like to thank Chris and Ian for opening my eyes to the complexities and intricacies of Twitter. Maybe one day I will become important enough to have people care about me taking my dog for a walk or brushing my teeth. But until then, if I have to use Twitter, I will use it with as many principles and ethics as I can.
David Lombardi posted on September 14, 2011 at 10:32 pm
Twitter is a fast (instantaneous), convenient, and even trendy way to get the word out. Those are all great qualities, and they need to be readily embraced. The Internet, first with its Gametrackers and now Live Streams of games, has forever changed the way that we connect with sports… Well, in the same way, Twitter has revolutionized the way we connect with sports news. Change – or maybe I should say ‘improvement’ – is nothing to be afraid of….
What we need to be weary of, however, is the seeming lack of limits and restraints in the Twitter world. Last January, everyone assumed that football coach Jim Harbaugh was leaving Stanford to coach the Miami Dolphins – because of Twitter. Well, it turns out that Harbaugh had no interest of coaching in Miami – and the Dolphins head coach, Tony Sparano, hadn’t even been fired. Harbaugh ended with the San Francisco 49ers, but – thanks to a lack of restraint on Twitter – PROFESSIONAL reporters created an unnecessary mess.
In slower, “snail” print media, it seems that there is a much sturdier mechanism in place to make sure that empty rumors do not become mistaken so easily for news. After all, at least one editor has to see a story before it goes through the long process of printing. Now, reporters anywhere can tweet whenever they want, without the restraints of an editor or the printing press.
Yes, this is an impressive technological jump forward. But it comes with increased responsibility; reporters must now edit THEMSELVES. They have added power to post directly to the world; therefore, they must show added restraint. Not all blabber is tweet-able material: Rapoport’s play-by-play of the Kraft funeral was a bit excessive.
We must embrace the speed, technology, and convenience of Twitter while keeping in mind that better technology requires its users to exercise better judgment and discretion on their own.
We are now are own editors.