Pic of the Day: Twitter is in the building
Post categories: social,Ìývisualisation
| 12:45 UK time, Monday, 12 October 2009
's Director of Media Partnerships is in the Broadcast Centre today. She showed various cross-media projects that they'd been involved in including the .
The slide behind Chloe shows a trending graph and visualisation of the time after . "And so what?" you're probably saying. However, what was interesting (or alarming depending on your POV) is the fact that MTV had a , , at the awards who popped up throughout the coverage on broadcast TV to report on and analyse what was being said in the . While watching 20 seconds of iJustine is decidedly not for the faint-hearted the nearest comparison I could find from the UK would be election nights with .
Comment number 1.
At 12th Oct 2009, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:You lot seem to spend so much time either being 'Twits' [1] or entertaining those from Twitter Inc. that I'm surprised that you find any time to do any real work...
[1] "Twits" those who use Twitter
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 13th Oct 2009, Green Soap wrote:You're comparing the posts of people on the internet, whose posts are likely to be rubbish
with a respected journalist.
No wonder there's a worry about the declining standards of the 91Èȱ¬.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 13th Oct 2009, Paul Murphy wrote:#2 Hi Tengsted
I wasn't really comparing what you call "the posts of people on the internet... with a respected journalist". What I was saying was that it's interesting that MTV fed viewer reaction to events on screen back into the broadcast itself. Election night specials, while they're waiting for results to come in, are almost entirely trying to speculate on the viewing public's intentions.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 13th Oct 2009, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:#3. At 1:52pm on 13 Oct 2009, PaulMurphy1 wrote:
"What I was saying was that it's interesting that MTV fed viewer reaction to events on screen back into the broadcast itself. Election night specials, while they're waiting for results to come in, are almost entirely trying to speculate on the viewing public's intentions."
I don't see what is so amazing or interesting here, doesn't the 91Èȱ¬'s Question time do something similar - and without having to hype Twitter - via viewers text messages? OK, it's not used as a back drop to the programme, and might not be real time but that is probably a good thing, if people want to know what Joe Public thinks they will be in the Pub and not in front of a TV! :-)
Sorry Paul, I know that many in your area of the 91Èȱ¬ are besotted with Twitter, and apologies for the rather abrupt comment @ #1, but this time you really are trying to place Twitter on a pedestal that doesn't exist.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 13th Oct 2009, Paul Murphy wrote:#4
Hi Boilerplated, I thought the comments in #1 were pretty mild for you rather than abrupt ;-)
A big part of my interest in Twitter is the way it's grown and been adopted so quickly and the implications of that. MTV obviously felt that it would work for their target audience (I think 14-24) in this instance. On the Internet blog we have a Twitter account but currently the only tweets from us are automatically sent out when we put up a new post.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 13th Oct 2009, TV Licence fee payer against 91Èȱ¬ censorship wrote:#5
"A big part of my interest in Twitter is the way it's grown and been adopted so quickly"
Cough, but with the 91Èȱ¬ (and other media organisations, to be fair) pushing it down our metaphorical throats all the time surely it should come as no surprise?! ;-P
"and the implications of that."
Hmm, young adults unable to converse in any more than 140 characters perhaps, we have already seen text-speek take over in emails and (sometimes) on the 91Èȱ¬ social media sites, knw wat I mEn M8?...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 13th Oct 2009, Green Soap wrote:but with the 91Èȱ¬ (and other media organisations, to be fair) pushing it down our metaphorical throats all the time surely it should come as no surprise?!
Like this story:-
Particularly when a very well established blog, and an equally well established print journals website were involved also.
Oh but Stephen Fry was involved, so that means it must be Twitter that saved the day.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 14th Oct 2009, wendymann wrote:twitter is important for big orgs such as the bbc or intel agencies for the simple reason it can quickly without evidence direct some public opinion into forming an opinion about issues that would otherwise require some thought.
for instance the iran elections and subsequent protests. no major evidence of fraud but the claim has remained (unlike afghanistan where it has been brushed away to a great degree and no twiiter just a war to colonialise the country by the west) and then the protests of a minority of the population , largely the elite whose vested interests are threatened by a government that might choose to aid the majority rural under privileged.
in this no broadcaster that envelopes itself so completely can ever be trusted as an objective intelligent independent source .
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 14th Oct 2009, wendymann wrote:"Sorry Paul, I know that many in your area of the 91Èȱ¬ are besotted with Twitter, and apologies for the rather abrupt comment @ #1, but this time you really are trying to place Twitter on a pedestal that doesn't exist."
the real interest is the fact that it removes any serious thought processes and journalism means deferring to what twitter says.
that is broadcasters get paid to report other peoples nonsense rather than real facts in an holistic manner.
what twitter is about for presenters is egos. theirs.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 30th Mar 2010, U14402580 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)