How to toy with Twitter critics

There is a certain breed of journalist -- typically older, established, set in their ways -- who dismisses Twitter and Facebook. I come across lots of them.

Most are polite, saying "well, it's not really for me". Some are ignorant, loudly proclaiming it all to be a waste of time and implying that those who use such sites are fairly "sad".

I had a chat recently with a veteran broadcaster who was of the dismissive "sad" school of thought. He opined that those on Twitter are "saddos" whose views count for little or nothing. This is how the next part of the conversation went.

Me: "Oh do you think so? There was actually a lot of discussion about you on Twitter yesterday…"
Him: "What do you mean? What was being said?"
Me: "Ah. So you are interested?"
Him: "Not really… But what was said?"
Me: "Ah you know, the usual. Mixed comment about a few things."
Him: [Looking more serious] "What things?"
Me: "Just a few bits and pieces."
Him: "Can you forward me on the links?"

See how the process works? From being a bunch of "saddos" whose views don't count, all of a sudden the Tweeters' views are of particular interest.

This is a metamorphosis I've encountered a few times. So the next time you come across someone who likes to opine on the sadness and irrelevance of Twitter or Facebook, tell them they're being discussed on it. Watch how quickly their attitude changes.

Comments

[Aaron]

I think you mix up the general opinion on the service (the fact that people are obsessed by it) and what's actually said on it. Not that I'm condoning the view - I enjoy using twitter - I'm just playing DA to seperate the points in your argument.

What's said in any medium - twitter or otherwise - is important, as it's a finger on the beating pulse of public opinion.

On the other hand, somebody who sits behind their twitter client wasting hours of every day chasing around it is a bit sad... But that's a stereotype of twitterers (too many t's and r's combined there); same way that geeks used to be typecast as the glasses wearing idiots who never get the girl.

I think that a far more sophisticated model of twitter will evolve, as with any social hierarchy. Sure there are sad people on twitter, but the vast majority are just Joe's.

And look at me, I've read your blog and written this lengthy response within minutes of hearing about it on twitter. :-)

[dahamsta]

Although I think the format has a limited lifespan anyway (and that it can't be helping the already attention-deficited young-uns) the main problem I have with Twitter is the main problem I have with blogs: 99.9% of them are inane twaddle. The tools get better to filter out the twaddle, but there's still an awful lot of twaddle out there, and generally speaking I tend to avoid applauding twaddle.

There are sparks of light in the darkness though, like the 108 feeds in my RSS reader; of which you are of course one Adrian. But my Twitter handle lies idle. I have better things to do with my time.

Hopefully someone will implement a good old-fashioned archaic class system on Twitter, where the likes of Mr. Fry are allowed to beat the twaddlers about the head as they try to register...

But then will WE be allowed in? ;)

adam

[Gerard Cunningham]

There was a similar moment on Tubridy last week, where Ryan and his guests spent a minute and a half talking about how bloggers were a bunch of self-regarding egoists who wanted to be "real writers", before going on to read out and talk at length about what was being said about themselves in the blogs.

[Adrian Weckler]

Aaron, point made: point responded to.

Adam, I'd say it's not 99% but maybe 90%. But, in fairness, 90 per cent of most conversations we have is inane twaddle. We still talk, don't we?
And blogs are very different, I think, because they take way more time to browse effectively. Also because there are very few things worth saying in more than 160 characters. (Have I shot myself in the foot?)

Gerard, ha ha! That particular broadcaster is a case in point...

[Gamma Goblin]

It's a pity Twitter's implementation is so crap though :-\ I'd like to use it but I find its limitations infuriating.

[Andrew]

I'm not much of a fan of twitter, but not because I find it 'sad'. I worry that its rise has been to the detriment of blogs. and yes, you're right when you say that 99% of blogs are also twaddle, but at least they are (in most cases), written by people who have taken a bit of time to express their feelings on a topic.

As for baitng the twitter critics by telling them they're being discussed...I'm a teacher, if 12 year-old kids are passing notes about me i might like to know what they say. But it doesn't mean i want to join in with them. People are perfectly entitled not to like twitter, it bewilders me that some people get so defensive of it.

[Adrian Weckler]

Andrew, in fairness, it's not those who use Twitter who get defensive, nervy or keep talking about Twitter like it's an issue to be dealt with. At least not in my experience.

Of course we're entitled to dislike Twitter, blogs, websites or anything. But why go on about it? As Ryan T does?

Honestly, I tell you that the biggest moaners in journalism about Twitter are those who are older, more established, more comfortable in their grooves. (Younger journos tend not to have a problem with it.)

They don't criticise it casually or relaxedly, though. There's a definite edge.

Wonder why...

[Alice Stephenson]

They must just not have anything they are passionate enough about to want to share it with more than their spouses (who get tired of hearing it, or their grandchildren, who couldn't care less)?? could that be it? ... Most of the people I know don't have a clue what it is, and when I tell them how my website has increased it's traffic, by using it, they are befuddled. Not understanding the concept of "hits" on a site, they surely don't comprehend how something as silly sounding as "twitter" can help it. I personally prefer it to a blog, because the character limitation forces us to get right to the point, without all of the odds and ends found in a blog. I love the commercial that says that x percent amount of people are twittering and 26% don't have a clue what that means. I confess I don't remember who created the ad. Maybe it was Sprint?

being an older person, I can understand how we HATE to have to learn something new and God forbid have to learn to accept it. The old way has to be better? doesn't it? hmmmmm????? no, not in my experience. Younger people have grown up with computers and constant change....they accept anything as normal. Heck, I know a man that still thinks putting a man on the moon was a government conspiracy. (it's the truth, I do know a man like that!)

[Adrian Weckler]

Alice, you hit the nail on the head about brevity: Twitter gets right to the point. Let those who want to snuggle up into an armchair to read a long, long blog post do so; a lot of us just want the punchline.

[Mark]

Great post Adrian

IMO that certain breed of journalist will be out of a job in five years time if they stay stuck in The Ivory Tower and refuse to listen to the masses.

[dahamsta]

I'll stick by my 99% figure Adrian, sorry. There's an AWFUL lot of blogs out there.

It's easier to filter conversations than it is with Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc. You get one good post to every 10 (or 20, or more) bad ones. You can't lead it like you can a conversation, or flick channel and back later like TV, it's in your feed, annoying you. Again, the filters are getting better, but they're a long way off conversation.

And finally, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you again about 160 characters points. I'm not saying you have a bad attention span, but mine is definitely longer than that. Shorter than academic essays, but definitely longer than 160 chars. :)

adam

[Michele Neylon]

The web interface to Twitter sucks.
A lot of people get a twitter account. Use the web interface. Get confused. Give up.
It's a pity, as it can be a useful "place" to interact, though the 140 character limit can be a bit frustrating at times

[Andrew]

"Twitter gets right to the point. Let those who want to snuggle up into an armchair to read a long, long blog post do so; a lot of us just want the punchline."

I get what you're saying, but with that approach no-one would ever have written a great novel and movies would probably only be twenty minutes at the longest. I also find it difficult and tedious reading really long blog posts, but I'd like to think most people can cope with three or four concise paragraphs. most good stories can be told quickly, but most good stories deserve a bit more detail than 140 characters affords to them.

I'm with Adam on this: I don't like dead long pieces, but Twitter length is completely insufficient for a lot of things.

[Adrian Weckler]

Andrew,

No, I'm not dismissing novels or long pieces of writing out of hand. Lord knows that my average article in the paper is at least 600 words. And many of my blog posts are of similar length.

My point is that for a forum that is used very frequently for information as well as entertainment, Twitter's brevity rules are a Godsend.

Now, you may argue that they facilitate every Tom, Dick and Harry to chirp in with their two cents because of this. And I suppose you're then back to Adam's point that 99% of blogs, Tweets etc are inane rubbish. But that is a different argument: that argues that most people are boring and have nothing to say.

Fair enough if that is the feeling. Sometimes I agree with that. But then again that's where you can choose who to follow and who not to follow on Twitter.

[dahamsta]

You can indeed Adrian, but you can't filter from that. If feeds are to truly work for me, I need exclusion and inclusion filters to keep i-had-cheese-for-lunch out of my feed, and incredibleness in. I'm sure there are plugins and extensions out there to help with that, but they're not good or popular enough to find me yet; and they need to be part of the program anyway, not addons. And by part of the program I mean server-side, on the feed. Feed readers need to do it too, but it needs to start on the feed.

A good example of this is Gizmodo offering users the ability to exclude Apple from their feeds. However it's also an example of limitation, because: a) it's a hack, b) it's not a very good hack, and c) it's not a clever hack, in that it's not granular.

Wordpress and Twitter can lead the way on this, by providing end-user control panels to feeds, that allow them to include and exclude categories, tags and keywords. Wordpress and Twitter don't have the cop-on to do it though, because they don't 'get' it. They never have, and until they figure out end users, they never will.

adam

[Shane Dempsey]

Ryan T calling twitter users saddos is a diversionary tactic, plain&simple. Like many presenters before him, he thinks that if he attacks something his (fogey) demographic doesn't understand it will be endearing and distract them from how seriously uncool they used to think he was. There's a long tradition of these celebrity rebirths-by-ranting.