Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(113)
-
▼
February
(22)
- Michelle Tedford's Professional Blog
- Redstone Film Festival Recap
- Audio podcast & slideshow instructions
- Our Audio Podcast
- A Capella Jen and Carolyn Podcast
- test audio podcast post
- Revised Bracketbuster Live Blog
- News-You-Can-Use Pitch: Seth Orensky and Laura Ver...
- Comments on Audio Podcast
- News You Can Use Pitch - Daniela and Yue
- § C1 audio podcasts
- § C1 blog & tweet readings
- Audio Podcast comment
- Comments on Audio Podcasts
- Amazing multimedia coverage by Hartford Courant
- Hard news story tip
- Social networking internship position
- Olympics Multimedia
- 2010 Beanpot Championship
- § A1 blog & tweet readings
- Interesting Article on Journalism
- Tweets & blogs, for §A1
-
▼
February
(22)
Contributors
- Alli
- Allison D
- Aurore Joshi
- Brad
- Courtney
- Dan Ventresca
- Dan
- Daniela Guernica
- Danihope
- Dr. Brett M. Rhyne
- Emily Sharp
- Jennifer E. Brown
- Jill Foley
- Jillian Fay
- Julia Ivins
- Katie
- Kayla Ayres
- Kellie
- LV
- Leah
- Maria
- Molly F
- Paul Squire
- Renee
- Scott Zaramba
- Seth Orensky
- Stefanie Tuder
- Stephanie
- Tristan
- mhealy
I've never actually used Twitter and have been somewhat averse to starting to "tweet" as my roommate calls it, but looking at the coverage of different events around the city on Twitter has made me realize that it can definitely be utilized as a media tool. I think it is especially suited to events like sports or contests where you can report on a score or the status of the players and eventually announce a winner. I think it would NOT lend itself well to lower-key events such as a lecture because there would be a demand for interesting new updates that I think would be difficult to find based on the event. CoveritLive seems to work much like Twitter except on a more effective scale. I especially like the little details such as polls you can add and the time stamp that let's you see the minute-by-minute reporting.
ReplyDeleteLike Chantal, I was adamantly opposed to twittering before this class. Jokingly, I actually called one of my friends a "tweeting twit." I just couldn't understand what all the hype was about, and to be honest I hated the idea of live, consistent updates. Honestly, who wants to know that I am currently sitting in the dining hall drinking coffee? However, I finally broke down and set up a twitter and blogger account. After looking over the twitter site and now the coveritlive site, I can understand why both of these mediums are rapidly becoming useful journalism tools. Because of the character limit on twitter, it is a good resource to post updates (not just about what someone is currently doing), but potential news stories. For example, I found out about BU closing at 2PM today on twitter before I got an email with the news. Also, I think it is a sound tool for a horse-race news story. Posting updates on a sporting event or a presidential election would be well suited for twitter. I am also new to coveritlive, and the site it definitely a bit more intimidating that twitter or blogger (at least for me). However, it seems like an organized site. I like the layout, and the "media uploader" seems as though it would be a good tool while blogging about an event. As Chantal already noted, the polls also seem as though they would be an interesting tool. Overall, Coveritlive seems like a more in-depth version of twitter.
ReplyDeleteI’m glad to know that I’m not the only one new to Twitter. Like the girls above, before this class I didn’t really get the concept of “tweeting,” but now I see how useful a tool it can be when it comes to breaking news. I like how you can track similar Tweets and updates by using hashtags. Twitter seems like the best and probably simplest way to update stories while they are happening, and given the character limit, the updates do not seem cluttered. I like how many of the groups utilized the tools on Coveritlive, like by adding videos and polls. The fact that you’re able to go back and edit your blogs if need be is pretty cool too. Coveritlive definitely seems to be a more advanced form of blogging over Twitter.
ReplyDeleteAs with the latter three students, I have had limited "tweeting" experience, and tended to utter the world with a negative, mocking tone. While I do see that it can be useful media tool (seriously, I do agree with the three other students), and do understand the transition to "citizen reporting" that journalism seems to be shimmying towards, I still worry that twitter can blur the line between news and conversation. Coveritlive, which still allows for the frequent event updates seems to almost be a more professional interface than twitter, integrating more reporting elements than the 160 word limit twitter.
ReplyDeleteI think these two platforms compliment each other very well. Twitter seems to be a great platform for breaking news, when the emphasis is on an event with many things happening simultaneously. Tweets can be short and witty. They are informative, but also informal. A reporter can tweet quickly and efficiently, but not necessarily with the amount of detail and context to get a full sense of the news. Thus, they tweet more often.
ReplyDeleteBlogging, on the other hand, allows more space for explanation and additional analysis. The blog platform lends itself well to factual hard news tidbits (i.e. what is happening, who is doing the action, why are they doing it…. etc.). The “voice” of the journalist is not as discernable in the blog writing as it is in the tweets. Blogs also seem to be better suited to handle photos, video, and other links to multimedia. Blogs can provide the context for these additional resources, whereas Twitter only gives you so many characters to explain your posted links. The blogs in coveritlive also have timestamps, which are helpful if you’re reading the coverage after the fact. Seeing the news spread over a specific block of time gives the reader a better sense of place and feel for the event.
I think updates from Coveritlive and Twitter are great for breaking news. The updates are concise enough that people can skim them and find out what the most important or most relevant updates are.
ReplyDeleteThe blogging is better for people who aren't as into Twitter, which is a fair amount of people. The blogging is more specific, more informative...less tacky, in a way. Sometimes Twitter can seem too hip and intimidating. Blogging is too, but not as much.
I enjoyed reading the sports updates from the Beanpot. I think they were the coolest to follow because they reminded me so much of sports broadcasts--like play by play broadcasting. As a broadcast student, it's cool to spot the similarities.
I don't think any reader has to check out both at the same time, rather, I think that each platform is best when used separately. One platform fits one preference and the other platform fits the other.
Although it seemed quite unfamiliar at first, I'm beginning to get used to Coveritlive. I like the tools it offers (such as polls and use of the media library). I have to say that I like it more than Twitter. Coverage on Coveritlive is obviously more comprehensive. There's more room to develop a narrative.
ReplyDeleteTwitter is great for following breaking news. It's concise. It's conversational, it's like text messaging. However, tweets come across as a little abrupt to me. They leave me wanting to know more. I don't like the character limitations. I guess Twitter is a good platform if you just want to know or say what happened, and not bother too much with the details. I can see the value in that but I'm still not too crazy about Twitter.
Having had the experience of using both platforms while covering a live event for this class, I feel that the two vary in their ability to inform.
ReplyDeleteTwitter, because of its character limit, demands brevity that usually news articles call for. Because of this, style takes a back seat in order to fit in all you need to say into one post, meaning that abbreviations (LOL, WTF,etc.) sometimes need to be used. Because of this, I feel Twitter works better for recreational use but trivializes news updates. The plus side of this however is that it makes it much easier for readers to receive updates, such as accessing Twitter on their phones.
Coveritlive offered more features than Twitter and did not constrict updates with a character limit. While updates on there still remained short, you were able to include much more information. It also helped provide much more in-depth reporting by adding polls and other tools that allowed readers to participate in the news itself (for example, when I used it to cover an A Capella competition, I was able to add a poll to find out the audience's favorite performance. It was an interesting way to make the news more interactive as it actually happened)
Twitter may be more well-known, but for accurate reporting, it is clear that Coveritlive is a much more efficient tool.
I think Twitter is tough to follow hard news on because I think the constant updates come so fast that it's tough to keep up. Twitter is much better for socializing purposes or for sharing funny links, interesting tidbits, pictures etc., but definitely not towards news stories. Coveritlive seems way more practical in the news aspect. It looks like a more complete way to cover the news, as there is more space to write in detail.
ReplyDeleteI created a Twitter account a few months ago thinking that it was pointless, but now I find that I get most of my news from Twitter. I follow BBC News and several divisions of The New York Times and I find that I scroll through my Twitter feed in the morning to see headlines and click on stories rather than buying the paper(s) or going to their website(s).
ReplyDeleteAlthough Twitter can be a bit cumbersome (with the hashtags and such) for news, I think that it is a great tool for getting the word out to a large audience very quickly.
Coveritlive on the other hand, is a more versatile tool, but it does not offer as widespread a reach as Twitter. I began using coveritlive for the Redstone Film Festival last week (before we learned it was canceled for the "blizzard"), and I found it to be a bit confusing. It seems like it has great potential in its features to deliver news better than other outlets such as Twitter, but it hasn't reached it yet.
I've used twitter and coveritlive, and I think they have a lot of similarites. Both of them present information in a quick, free-flowing way and most of the information is brief and hard-hitting.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest difference between the two is how they attract readers. To read something on a coveritlive blog, a reader has to be looking for it. They have to go to the site it's published on and read it. Twitter, on the other hand, can pick up readers who never intented to read what you're publishing. People go on twitter regularly just to kill time or find something interesting to read about.
I'm old-fashioned. I admit I still get the majority of my news from The New York Times, MSNBC, CNN and the Globe (all websites, though...). But the Times, they are a-changin'.
ReplyDeleteI understand that the brevity of Twitter is enormously useful. One can get the (140 character limit) word out to an amazingly large international network really, really quickly. I think Twitter is an excellent supplement for a news website, but it is and should remain just a supplement. I've found in my experience in the Twittersphere that news organizations and reporters tend to tweet everything they post causing an overdose of tweets on my feed. I recommend selectivity in tweeting.
I have yet to use CoveritLive, but from what I can tell it is more practical and more versatile for news. I look forward to using it (and embedding it) in the blog I created for this course.
Like most of us have said, Twitter's got its limitations-- but I don't think it trivializes headlines with its character limitations. If anything, Twitter updates help spread the truest nuggets of news, which end up getting expanded upon on more mainstream news media sites. I remember when (I believe it was last summer?) there was a plane accident reported over the Hudson River in New York-- inspiring the immediate recollections of both the emergency landing in the river by Capt. Sully after that whole goose incident, not to mention visions of 9/11. Major news outlets didn't have any information to offer-- but Twitter immediately exploded with live-time updates and the first photos of the event (photos that eventually were picked up by mainstream media). Websites like CNN were updating their stories with mostly speculations, while Twitter had loads of first-person accounts.
ReplyDeleteI think for a pre-planned event, Coveritlive might be a good resource-- with the opportunity to plan ahead you can use more space, more room to expand, etc. But when it comes to breaking news, I check Twitter first. It's much easier to be credible if you only have 140 characters in which to report.