A cool part about covering a trial via Twitter is seeing reaction from those following the coverage. That’s the “social” part of the Internet social networking experience. But there’s been an interesting twist in the coverage of the federal racketeering trial of six accused Crips gang members.
Not only is it a first here in federal court, it’s the first trial I’ve had “retweets.” Retweet is Twitter-speak for someone repeating one of the short, 140-character posts to their followers — passing it along to a broader audience.
A few of the posts people have “retweeted” (RT) during the past week of testimony — from Barnegat, N.J. to Seattle:
- Alex73013: @rsylvester “Smith initially said he didn’t know anything about the robbery, but he eventually admitted to robbing the store to police.” …
- LindsayGriffith: Oops! RT @rsylvester: Court just learned that one of the jurors realized she’s a cousin to the fingerprint examiner who testified earlier.
- DBallardReisch: @rsylvester Not really clear how anyone remembers what happened in 1995!
- EmilyMedvec: RT @RSylvester “There was a man in the bathroom, who she said she didn’t know.”
- VBalasubramani: “To get OG status,’you’ve got to put in work.’ That includes riding in retaliation of the enemies.” (@rsylvester – from trial)
Continue following the trial this week at the box on the left or on my Twitter feed.
3 Comments
I’m sorry, but I just do not relate to this Twitter stuff. It appears to be little more than a list of spur of the moment disjointed stream of consciousness. It can never take the place of a well reasoned and comprehensive news article. Or maybe that is just the point, it does not have to be reasoned or comprehensive. But, wait a minute, maybe that is also the point and why it is a waste of time.
The reaction we’ve gotten is very positive. People feel they’re getting more detail from my Twitter reports throughout the day, making it more comprehensive than what they might find in print. I am able to report much more through Twitter than I can manage to get in one newspaper article.
That said, I am glad I have the opportunity to pull all the information together for a “well-reasoned” story at the end of the day. But I can tell when I post to Twitter I think about the information I need to provide and what would best serve those following me. Because it’s a social networking tool, I can also answer questions people may have and interact with them in a way I never could before. In those cases, I believe the tweets are “well-reasoned.” I don’t sacrifice my professional standards just because I’m using a different medium.
I’ve also had people tell me that they don’t regularly read the newspaper, or even visit our web site, but they get the information I provide on Twitter. I look at this as just another avenue to deliver news.
I hope this helps.
I also hope we’ll hear from those people who find Twitter useful, who will explain what they get out of it.
Twitter is useful only if one follows the tweets throughout an event, such as a trial. If one tried to pick up a tweet or two and expect to get the whole story, they would be missing out on a lot of information much like catching a radio news story midway. I see twitter (as it has been used in recent trails) as a written version of a radio or television news story. In addition, the news public is accustomed to learning the story after the fact, twitter does it as it is happening. Sorta like a live news conference that we see on televison.
Personally, I use twitter for the awesome, awesome links that users post (primarily photography related. Plus I have learned about some great new places to hang out in Wichita.