Comments on: Social media is not a fad http://www.jlittau.net/?p=441 Teaching, thinking, research, and training in multiplatform journalism Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:43:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Gina Chen http://www.jlittau.net/?p=441&cpage=1#comment-165 Gina Chen Sat, 23 May 2009 01:20:31 +0000 http://www.jlittau.net/?p=441#comment-165 I think you raise really good points about the perception of social media. So many people I know in the business seem to scoff at social media, raising many of the objections you highlighted: 1. Twitter doesn't make money. (So what. If you had the support of venture capitalists and the freedom to experiment for a few years, wouldn't you. I would.) 2. Social media won't save newspapers. (Of course not. There's no magic bullet. No one thing will save newspapers if even they can be saved. I agree with you; I'd focus on saving journalism. But social media can contribute to the engagement news organizations provide for their readers as a way of helping them make sense of their world.) A few other anti-social media ideas I hear a lot. 1. I only have 900 followers on Twitter ... how can that change anything? (It can't. But if you keep growing your followers and follow smart people, they'll sell your ideas for you. A way to quadruple your blog hits is to have this posse around you through social media who retweet your blog posts because they think they are worth a wider audience. That's how you really make an impact, but it's a cumulative effort. 2. MySpace was hot; now it's not. Won't the same happen with Twitter, Facebook? (Probably. But so what. Use them while they're here and be engaged in the new media conversation enough to know what the next big "it" app is.) I think you raise really good points about the perception of social media. So many people I know in the business seem to scoff at social media, raising many of the objections you highlighted:

1. Twitter doesn’t make money. (So what. If you had the support of venture capitalists and the freedom to experiment for a few years, wouldn’t you. I would.)
2. Social media won’t save newspapers. (Of course not. There’s no magic bullet. No one thing will save newspapers if even they can be saved. I agree with you; I’d focus on saving journalism. But social media can contribute to the engagement news organizations provide for their readers as a way of helping them make sense of their world.)

A few other anti-social media ideas I hear a lot.

1. I only have 900 followers on Twitter … how can that change anything? (It can’t. But if you keep growing your followers and follow smart people, they’ll sell your ideas for you. A way to quadruple your blog hits is to have this posse around you through social media who retweet your blog posts because they think they are worth a wider audience. That’s how you really make an impact, but it’s a cumulative effort.

2. MySpace was hot; now it’s not. Won’t the same happen with Twitter, Facebook? (Probably. But so what. Use them while they’re here and be engaged in the new media conversation enough to know what the next big “it” app is.)

]]> By: Troy http://www.jlittau.net/?p=441&cpage=1#comment-164 Troy Fri, 22 May 2009 01:27:20 +0000 http://www.jlittau.net/?p=441#comment-164 Part of my issue with those who decry the decline of the newspapers is that journalism as a whole (as you've said) doesn't appear to be in nearly the dire state that print journalism is. It strikes me that there are a lot a parallels actually, between the emergence of certain social networking sites over others and the relationship between print media and journalism. Though we've now been through a few shifts of the dominant venues the boom of social networking, the overall trend is toward a much more user-driven media experience, not away from it, making those who see it as a fad seem out of touch, to say the least. The journalistic project is alive and well, and although the venue seems to be changing from print to online, user-driven stuff, I don't see much cause for alarm on that front. Very few people are going to Twitter and Facebook for their news at this point, and from my perspective, there doesn't seem to be much confusion at all as to the slant that certain blogs are posting from. The beauty of online media is the awareness of all parties, readers and content producers, that people can go anywhere for their information, and that places a bigger burden than ever before on reporters to report the truth, it seems to me. More outlets equals more choice, and more choice means a higher level of competition amongst journalists, which can't be a bad thing for the flow of information to consumers. Part of my issue with those who decry the decline of the newspapers is that journalism as a whole (as you’ve said) doesn’t appear to be in nearly the dire state that print journalism is. It strikes me that there are a lot a parallels actually, between the emergence of certain social networking sites over others and the relationship between print media and journalism. Though we’ve now been through a few shifts of the dominant venues the boom of social networking, the overall trend is toward a much more user-driven media experience, not away from it, making those who see it as a fad seem out of touch, to say the least. The journalistic project is alive and well, and although the venue seems to be changing from print to online, user-driven stuff, I don’t see much cause for alarm on that front. Very few people are going to Twitter and Facebook for their news at this point, and from my perspective, there doesn’t seem to be much confusion at all as to the slant that certain blogs are posting from. The beauty of online media is the awareness of all parties, readers and content producers, that people can go anywhere for their information, and that places a bigger burden than ever before on reporters to report the truth, it seems to me. More outlets equals more choice, and more choice means a higher level of competition amongst journalists, which can’t be a bad thing for the flow of information to consumers.

]]>