How not to use Twitter

[AMacIsaac]

National Post tech reporter has a meltdown with a PR rep:

http://www.mediastyle.ca/2009/02/national-post-reporter-has-total-twitter-melt-down/comment-page-1/#comment-45

The moral of the story: be careful what you say on social networking platforms. This stuff spreads so virally that you're news before you realize it.

 

[luckyducky]

The kid's newest twitter is that he's leaving for a job in Dubai.

Nice timing, bud.

 

[Bob Slydell]

That was awesome. You'd think the tech reporter would know better, but I doubt he's the tech reporter any longer.

Very professional. I don't think I would talk like that to anyone, let alone do it on an open networking site.

 

[FileNotFound]

Complete idiot. Wonder how his new employers are reacting to this little show of professionalism.

 

[AMacIsaac]

I read some of his older Tweets. The kid is a hothead. He doesn't mind slamming anyone, especially those in the media business.

 

[Editude]

If "I read some of his old Tweets" doesn't describe the loss of newspapers' institutional relevance, I don't know what does.

 

[JR]

I'm always surprised that the National Post is still publishing.

 

[AMacIsaac]

If "I read some of his old Tweets" doesn't describe the loss of newspapers' institutional relevance, I don't know what does.

I won't disagree. Most of the papers I read Tweet their headlines now. I have no need to touch newsprint.

 

[Comma Chameleon]

No one ever "needed" to touch newsprint before, but if it's common for people to think Tweeted headlines are a substitute for the information one can glean from picking up and reading a newspaper (or at least scanning and maybe finding something unexpected), then more than just the industry is doomed. And the industry is very doomed, if this is how most people think.

 

[AMacIsaac]

No one ever "needed" to touch newsprint before, but if it's common for people to think Tweeted headlines are a substitute for the information one can glean from picking up and reading a newspaper (or at least scanning and maybe finding something unexpected), then more than just the industry is doomed. And the industry is very doomed, if this is how most people think.

Um ... the headlines drive to the website where the full story is.

 

[buckweaver]

No one ever "needed" to touch newsprint before, but if it's common for people to think Tweeted headlines are a substitute for the information one can glean from picking up and reading a newspaper (or at least scanning and maybe finding something unexpected), then more than just the industry is doomed. And the industry is very doomed, if this is how most people think.

Um ... the headlines drive to the website where the full story is.

I think Comma is talking about the idea that when you scan a full page of a newspaper, your eye might catch on something that maybe you wouldn't have clicked on if you had only seen a headline online. Some would argue that Web sites really can't duplicate that feeling -- although anyone who's ever spent an hour surfing from Wiki page to Wiki page, because you just want to know a little bit more and that cross-link is so inviting, might dispute that fact.

 

[AMacIsaac]

No one ever "needed" to touch newsprint before, but if it's common for people to think Tweeted headlines are a substitute for the information one can glean from picking up and reading a newspaper (or at least scanning and maybe finding something unexpected), then more than just the industry is doomed. And the industry is very doomed, if this is how most people think.

Um ... the headlines drive to the website where the full story is.

I think Comma is talking about the idea that when you scan a full page of a newspaper, your eye might catch on something that maybe you wouldn't have clicked on if you had only seen a headline online. Some would argue that Web sites really can't duplicate that feeling -- although anyone who's ever spent an hour surfing from Wiki page to Wiki page, because you just want to know a little bit more and that cross-link is so inviting, might dispute that fact.

And I do. ;D

 

[accguy]

Wow. Talk about a meltdown.

Definitely how to not use Twitter.

 

[DirtyDeeds]

No one ever "needed" to touch newsprint before, but if it's common for people to think Tweeted headlines are a substitute for the information one can glean from picking up and reading a newspaper (or at least scanning and maybe finding something unexpected), then more than just the industry is doomed. And the industry is very doomed, if this is how most people think.

Um ... the headlines drive to the website where the full story is.

I think Comma is talking about the idea that when you scan a full page of a newspaper, your eye might catch on something that maybe you wouldn't have clicked on if you had only seen a headline online. Some would argue that Web sites really can't duplicate that feeling -- although anyone who's ever spent an hour surfing from Wiki page to Wiki page, because you just want to know a little bit more and that cross-link is so inviting, might dispute that fact.

I'm with Comma 100 percent on that, and it's the reason I still read the paper religiously. Every day I read at least one story that probably wouldn't have caught my eye if I were on a Web site. Not to say the Web can't duplicate it, but I haven't seen many that have been able to. The "Most-Viewed" and "Most E-Mailed" links are a start, but are not quite the same. By and large, I think Web sites are pretty poorly organized.

 

[buckweaver]

You talking about newspaper Web sites or Web sites in general, DD?

Newspaper Web sites, by and large, suck. And I think the reason is mostly because even when newspapers hire good people to deal with the online content, they fail to hire good Web developers, too.

 

[DirtyDeeds]

You talking about newspaper Web sites or Web sites in general, DD?

Newspaper Web sites, by and large, suck. And I think the reason is mostly because even when newspapers hire good people to deal with the online content, they fail to hire good Web developers, too.

Yeah, mostly newspaper sites, I guess. Maybe they'll get there someday, but in my experience the Web site allegedly takes priority but they don't put the manpower into it to make it user-friendly. And like you said, the development/design, which should be at the top of the list, is not.
There are so many things I read (entertainment, politics and such) that I simply would not know I cared about if I didn't see it in the newspaper. Maybe it's just a matter of conditioning, and I am set in the ways of newspapers as far as presentation/news judgment. And there is really no standard on the Web like there is in newspapers. But at the same time, most people (non-journalists) probably don't think like I do.

 

[buckweaver]

Well, I would guess a lot more people than you think have already conditioned themselves on how to navigate a news Web site just as effectively as they ever did with the paper product.

I know I have. If stories and pages are cross-linked well, I think I end up learning and reading a LOT more from a Web site than I do with a newspaper. Of course, add to that the fact that most newspapers have so little to offer these days ...

 

[DirtyDeeds]

Good point(s). I don't have a problem navigating most sites, I'm just saying that there are things in the paper that I read that I wouldn't seek out or wouldn't be prominently displayed/easy to find on the Web. No question it's a matter of conditioning, but it also has a lot to do with the many poorly organized sites.

 

[AMacIsaac]

So anyhow, the individual in question now has his updates protected. Can't say that I blame him, but he's the one who made himself the news.

 

[partain]

Guess he didn't realize twitter is best used for children's funerals.