Breaking it online

At times it’s difficult to see online journalism matching the power of traditional media such as television news and the press. Even with the extraordinary potential of the Internet, there are few digital news agencies that are taken seriously.

Just look at the recent (and ongoing) federal election – the importance placed on news polls, editorials on the day of polling stating which way each paper wants its readers to vote, the credentials of political analysts – and compare this to the way the election was covered online. Minimally, if not jokingly.

But digital journalism offers an exciting and independent source of news. A journalist can bypass any vested interests of their employer by posting directly to the world.

I’ve been very skeptical about how powerful digital journalism can be. It seems there are only a few sites dedicated to quality journalism and only a few good journalists to provide it. Online journalism can’t afford to bypass any traditional news values or newsroom practices if it wants to be taken seriously, yet most ‘citizen journalism’ seems to be someone huddled over their computer in a dark room, without the resources for gathering accurate, newsworthy information ethically.

But today I read this article by Paul Carr about an online exposé on Ford and it reminded me of the potential and power of online journalism:

‘…the mainstream media was caught napping…it took a lone reporter, using the oft-maligned tools of digital journalism, to break the story and shame his peers in print…the result was much wailing and gnashing and playing catch-up by traditional reports – and crowing by online hacks that finally – this time – new media has shown itself to be a legitimate platform for breaking news.’

Unfortunately, I doubt this is the time when new media is seen as ‘legitimate’. It’s going to take a deeper revolution in news journalism before that happens.

Joining the Twittersphere

I tried Twitter last year, when the hype was still gaining speed before its dizzying take off. I didn’t stay for long – my friends were reluctant to try it  and while it was exciting for a few days to find out what celebrities ate for lunch, I quickly got bored and returned to the comfy confines of Facebook.

But now I’m back, ready to embrace the 24-hour connectivity, to share my innermost thoughts with complete strangers and to sit staring at the update bar for an hour thinking of how to be witty and wondering if anyone is really interested in what the cat dug up in the garden.

I’m still not hooked up to Twitter constantly, which is not ideal for the dedicated Twitter user. If you’re following a large number of people you can miss a lot by logging in and out every so often. I’m also still uncertain about the “right” people to follow and the “right” things to tweet.

*   *   *

It’s disturbingly easy to find actors, writers, comedians and sportspeople ready to share their personal lives in often excruciatingly minute detail. I find Twitter works best when it is used as a marketing tool. An actor can tell fans about what film they’re currently starring in, a writer can share their writing process with readers or a television personality can advertise their program.

I found this view by an AFL footballer on the use of Twitter quite interesting. Cale Morton from the Melbourne Demons encourages fans to follow the Demons players who are using Twitter, and I was a bit surprised by his view on the interaction between players and the public. He says he follows journalists to receive breaking news and sees Twitter as a beneficial tool in connecting the club to its supporters. He reveals the football club’s attitude towards social media:

“Before you feel like you’re intruding a bit on our personal lives, Twitter is predominately a public forum – everything is for all eyes to see. At the Demons, we are encouraged to provide this insight for fans and followers to enjoy – led by fellow Twitterers Jim Stynes and Cameron Schwab!”

Twitter is a powerful way to communicate if used in the right way. Being free and easy, it breaks down the barriers between content producers and celebrities and the ordinary fan.

*   *   *

Just as there is good and bad web writing, there is good and bad tweeting. The best tweets are funny or informative, or link to something that is funny or informative, the worst ones are dull and rarely updated.

For an example, a quick visit to TonyAbbott’s twitter page shows his last tweet:

“This election is about giving a great people a better government. The Coalition will end the waste, stop the taxes and stop the boats.” – 6:35 PM Jul 17th via web

This, in my opinion is a BAD tweet. It shows little regard for the platform on which it is posted. A slogan posted almost a month ago does not an active Twitter user make. Compare this to Julia Gillard. In the middle of my writing this blog post, Julia Gillard has tweeted to her followers:

“Switched on the NBN in Tasmania today. It will deliver faster internet to Australians & create jobs but @TonyAbbottMHR wants to axe it.  5 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone”

No, it’s not a brilliant tweet, but it uses some Twitter infrastructure and it was done from an iPhone! How hip and trendy! The language is also more appropriate for a more informal platform.

Being new to Twitter I’m still trying to discover what constitutes ‘good’ tweeting. When presenting links to a photo, video or web article it seems important to provide some comment or explanation of it. Good spelling and grammar is still important, which is surprising for such a quick medium. I would have thought abbreviations would have become commonplace, but most Twitter users put lots of information across multiple tweets rather then trying to cram it all in one.

Over the next few weeks I expect I’ll pick up some of the conventions of Twitter. In the meantime you can follow me  at @lizchomiak and witness all my Twittering mistakes.

Election 2010

Even though I’ve been trying to avoid all press, TV and radio coverage of the Federal Election to stop my brain from dissolving into a stew of catchphrases and jaunty anti-mining-tax jingles, I’ve found the online election coverage and discussion quite fascinating.

The 2007 election announced the coming of social media into Australian politics, with Kevin Rudd and John Howard trying to connect with first time voters by logging into MySpace, posting campaign announcements on YouTube and collecting friends on Facebook. Three years later, any excitement surrounding politicians using the Internet is dead, buried and cremated.

The article from the Australian, ‘Sorry, this isn’t the Twitter election’, describes the online campaigns of Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott which are, let’s face it, pathetic. Gillard’s advisors have tweeted on her behalf less than 20 times since July and Tony Abbott’s Facebook page hasn’t been updated since June. Since before the election was called. The most interesting thing on Facebook is the group with 50,000+ members, ‘Friends don’t let friends vote for Tony Abbott’, and they’re not doing much other than posting funny Abbott quotes.

Given the huge number of Australians on social media, this seems a great opportunity to use social media for something tangible, such as getting young people interested in voting, yet the mainstream media still holds the most political clout by a long way. A journalist asking Gillard about her education policy reveals a lot more than a tweet from one of her advisors pretending to be Gillard visiting a school. Until politicians advisors find a way to use it in an engaging way, there won’t be a ‘Twitter election’.

I have found some online political material which I think is quite interesting.

I was impressed by the ‘Women Speak Out” campaign from GetUp! (A political movement which tries to get issues into the mainstream media). While the video ad about Tony Abbott is interesting in itself, I find the campaign around it even more so. The organisation asks viewers to donate so that the ad can be shown on television, and at the time of this post, they had collected more than $150,000 in less than three days.

I think it touches on our topic for this week, the role of the “user” in Web 2.0, as an actor that enjoys participating in creating and publishing content. While GetUp! shot the ad, it is the users who give money and ultimately get the ad into the mainstream. They can feel part of the process and are probably more likely to help GetUp! again in the future, while GetUp! raises the money for ad space solely from its followers. It’s a different way of users acting than the purely creative users of YouTube and Flickr.

Another interesting possibility of the Internet in an election is getting people interested in voting and making their vote count, as demonstrated by the website Below the Line. I had this site recommended to me, and as an active participant in democracy, duly used it to plan my Senate vote on election day.

After selecting your state of residence you can plan what order to vote for senators on the massive Senate ballot card, create a personal PDF How to Vote card, print it out and take it into the polling booth. A quick Google search can tell you about each candidate and help you make an informed decision about who to vote for. This kind of thing was not nearly as simple and accessible a decade ago.

Even though elections and campaigning have not been revolutionised in the way we were promised, Web 2.0 has changed some aspects of Australian politics. At least it’s more than just Malcolm Turnbull tweeting about how nobody loves him.