Facebook or Twitter? Facebook and Twitter? Neither? YouTube?

I think you're both right.

If something in my wheelhouse breaks, say an Alabama football story, Twitter is going to kill all other media in terms of keeping me up to date. I follow every Alabama beat writer I could find and have a list set up of only them and Southeastern Conference football writers. This site's version of keeping up with that story is dixiehack and Steak Snabler posting primarily what they see on Twitter from those same sources.

But I don't have that same deep Twitter pool for Arkansas football news, so the Bobby Petrino thread allowed me to get my news from those who already were following many Razorback writers and fans. That was helpful. The same is true for NFL coaching searches. I don't follow that many NFL media members, particularly on the local front. Having all that information here with a membership committed to keeping everyone updated is nice.

 

I will stay off Facebook until it gets a privacy policy and respect for copyright. I have both a personal and work Twitter account. I've created a bunch of lists, which make it much easier to sort through the chaos.

The McClatchy paper where my friend works not only required her to sign up for a Twitter account -- to which some editor has the password -- it has given her a daily (?) quota of tweets.

 

Next thing you know, they're going to start posting her stories to the Internet.

 

The only practical use I can see for Twitter is it forces, and maybe even trains, windy writers to condense their thoughts and get to the f-king point.
I am willing to admit I might be overlooking something.
I wish we had a character limit here.

 

I agree with that. If we were on Facebook, I would like it.

 

There's a difference between using Twitter and tweeting.

 

The problem is, a good third of the time the 'Conrad Bain' in that story isn't really dead.

 

There is no such thing as Twitter breaking a story. There are people on Twitter who break stories. Figure out whom you can trust.

 

It's not the medium. It's the individuals using the medium. I follow 1,200 people on Twitter. And I have no trouble sifting through when there's a lot of information about a certain story. I usually just check it on Google News if I'm really intent on retweeting or discussing.

Mostly I enjoy Twitter for real-time commentary (read: humor and snark) while events occur.

Which also goes to Facebook's privacy issues. Be diligent with your profile as far as monitoring what others might post and tag you in, and don't post anything you'd be afraid to publicize. Facebook has been prone to more paranoid hoaxes regarding privacy and such than any other social media.

"They're grabbing your phone number!!!!" (No, you have to manually enter it in, which I have not)
"They're stealing your INFORMATION!!!!" (They cannot steal anything; you chose to post what you posted)
"Anyone can see your PROFILE!!!!!!" (Go in and change your privacy settings. It's a simple process)

 

Ok. Y'all have convinced me. I'll try Twitter and use the lists. Now I just need a handle and those few key bullshit words about myself. Hmmmmmm.....

 

Exactly. There's a big difference between reporters tweeting out links to Conrad Bain obits and @Biebr4evs tweeting out "OMG Selena Gomez RIP 4 reals!!1"

 

Facebook has definitely plateaued. It's great for me to keep up with family and friends -- I've given up using it as a work tool as I did when I first joined -- but I can't remember the last time I got a surge of friend requests on it. Which is fine. I've got enough friends on there.

Meanwhile, I still get consistent Twitter adds on a weekly basis. Granted, it's designed as a work feed, but Twitter seems far more dynamic and flexible, hence its appeal, hence its crack-like use by beat writers.