91Èȱ¬

Chris, I don't think it's as simple as handing over a twitter account to a successor. Each twitterer (sorry, I guess that sounds better than twit!) brings their own unique flavour to their commentary on current affairs - LauraK certainly would be hard to replace.

I'm pretty certain though, that readers are smart enough to make the switch if they genuinely enjoyed the commentary.. you're right that trying to control it is not really in tune with the general social media trend.

Craig

May I assume that PM Cameron will not be disrupting online social networking such as Blackberry Messenger & Twitter during civil unrest - a move that onto itself seemed repressive. Egyptian authorities shut down mobile and Internet services in January during mass protests against then-President Hosni Mubarak, while China is quick to shut down online communication it sees as subversive.
I didn't really like seeing Cameron follow this line of undemocratic thought in the first place, especially since Twitter-organized Britons were cleaning up after London riots.

I recently got my twitter account and it was nice to straight away have direct communication with two journalists; Hiroko Tabuchi and Akiko Fujita instead of telepathy from the past two years. Sometimes I even can communicate with pictures from the internet when people usually request for me to look at them. Anyway from today onwards I hope at least an interview with Helen Boaden and Val Gooding should be possible in the near future. There are many changes occuring today especially when it concerns souls of human beings, the most interesting aspect of the UK to me has always been Mary Poppins and she has always had her own favourite souls. Most probably aspects which I have commented upon are only realised by very few human beings who have the same sensitivity level as me when they live their daily lives.

If Mr. Smith could manage more than 'X walks out a door' on twitter that would be an improvement, especially if also sparing the 'X strides like a god' vs. 'X slinks out scowling' that lathers personal agenda over pretty low-rent 'reporting' at best anyway.

And if the 91Èȱ¬ can get its head round twitter as a useful extra tool for as opposed to instead of good journalism, and also not a vehicle for rallying (not excused by 'this is my personal opinion and not...' when the bio is ladled with links to and claims of association with the 91Èȱ¬) that would be nifty too.

Ta very much.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

If quietoaktree fancies living in North Korea, and really can't tell the difference then heaven help him or her.
I know I won't get a reply, but how can you have someone described as "Chief Political Correspondent" when there is a more important correspondent called "Political Editor"?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

After all 91Èȱ¬'s attention and efforts to make their content more accessible with My Web My Way, I'm quite surprised 91Èȱ¬ still haven't found a good way to handle social media for those of us who are not disabled.

@Bluesberry (#2) - interesting point about governement intervention in social media during times of crisis. I believe that while the risks of coordinated looting etc exists during rare events like the , it's still probably best for govt not to interfere with disrupting social media access. The last thing the UK needs is Cameron deciding for the public when to stop the flow of information.

Just reading the tweets about Mubarak's trial in Egypt today makes one realise the importance of on-the-ground citizen journalism.

On the topic of reporter's twitter accounts, I agree with Craig (#1) above, they each have their own personalities and readers tend to follow the person rather than just the brand them. So good call by the 91Èȱ¬ to not interfere with that.

Twitter aside, I hope we see a huge leap in reporting quality - LK spent far too much time listing to the snide, back stabbing comments of the Westminster village and then relaying that to us as important politics.

It is not, and her reports did nothing to enlighten us as to what is actually going on, but just to titillate that handful who are more interested in the gossip than good government or the future of the country.

A news station that is paid for by the tax payer has no business using such reports as part of main stream news, just so the editors and journalists have a chance of picking up the odd award or better job.

If you cannot or will not name the source so we, the public, can judge for ourselves, then it has no business being on our screens during main news bulletins - it is probably speculative rubbish anyway.

A 50% censorship rate so far. Not bad.

I will say one thing for twitter; even though all posted must be viewed as being mostly speculation until proven sound (91Èȱ¬ 'news' excepted, evidently), and most certainly coloured by the personal biases of the authors (oddly many 91Èȱ¬ staff seem to pop up a get-out-of-impartiality-free card by posting as employees but claiming their employer is nothing to do with it), other than by the author or in the case of grotesque abuse, twitter seems to avoid vast swathes of 'referrals' or removals because the content didn't suit certain narratives.

Maybe it is a better source. So... why do I need to pay for the 91Èȱ¬ and its staffs' re-editted rehashes?