The McCain ‘Twitterview’: has Twitter jumped the shark?
By Andrew Heining | 03.17.09
That “Twitterview” was a little weird.
Watching questions from George Stephanopoulos (@GStephanopoulos) and answers from Sen. John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) bounce back and forth felt like watching a tennis match on delay. But it took Twitter somewhere it hadn’t been before, and brought users an instant interview with a major newsmaker in a format that only it could manage.
Now that everyone from Martha Stewart to your crazy uncle is using the microblogging site, has its time as a tech darling come and gone?
Surprisingly, the answer appears to be a resounding no.
Despite an influx of what would seem to be the least likely members to jump on the cutting-edge tech bandwagon, the site is flourishing. Two years after its debut, it’s still “out-and-out dominating” the South by Southwest Interactive festival, the place where tech trends are born.
Last week on his Late Night TV show, Jimmy Fallon tapped Diggnation hosts Alex Albrecht and Kevin Rose to help him turn an ordinary audience member into a Twitter celebrity. And champion cyclist Lance Armstrong famously got out the word about his stolen bike – and got it returned – by alerting his 300,000-plus Twitter followers.
But besides the fun of social networking stunts or the thrill of following your favorite celebrity’s updates – showing up at the diner where basketball star Shaquille O’Neill is twittering is fun, for sure – Twitter is emerging as a useful tool.
On the most basic level, it’s good for keeping friends informed of what you’re up to and sharing new discoveries. Then there’s promoting your work through tweets and links, and expanding your personal network of contacts by tweeting about conferences or events you’re attending.
But what about as a live search engine? Why search Google for a news story that’s hours or even days-old, when there are tweets coming across every few seconds about a major event like the plane that made an emergency landing in the Hudson River (a story that, incidentally, was first reported on Twitter)?
The site is useful as a live-blogging platform, too. Today’s Apple press conference on updates to the iPhone’s software was covered on Twitter with live updates from Macworld, providing small bits of information quickly, and to a wide audience, before a story could be written.
The Guardian even reports that a job search site has sprung up that scrapes data from millions of tweets to gather information about openings, presenting a possible revenue model for the site.
So has Twitter peaked? On the contrary – the message now is: Watch out, Twitter is still growing.
<< Has the US patent system gone too far? | MainComments
2. Canada | 03.17.09
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard! There are zero benefits to “Twitterviewing” over interviewing, and this first interview is a fantastic example of why it should be the very last! Firstly, this interview would have been much easier to execute over MSN or something….since when did we start using Twitter for live chat?! And secondly, if you’re looking for answers (which tends to be the case with most interviews), then why in the world would Twitter be your go-to interview tool?! The character limitations mean that in-depth and honest answers are the secondary goal, since your first goal is trying to keep it short and simple. Only Sarah Palin would benefit from this kind of “interviewing”. Twittering and journalism should stay far, far away from each other. We don’t need a more shorthand way to discuss serious issues. Remember when journalists were paid by the word? Think about how great it would be if modern journalists still had that kind of ambition, instead of this new sleazy kind of ambition that has them pouncing on trends like Twitter and YouTube. If anyone wanted trendier journalists, we would have just turned to bloggers.
3. ambassadorworld | 03.17.09
I read the verbatim interview with George Stephanopoulos and John McCain. It was interesting. Frankly, I see no value in Twitter’s 140 character limit. While I like the online chat format, I find the maximum of 140 characters onerous. It limits the questions, which usually, as it appears here, is not a problem. But, as noted in some journalists’ comments, the reply limit does not provide for in depth comments and as a result do not answer questions with the depth needed to understand the full scope of the respondent’s position. Whether you agree or disagree with the respondent, it is important to understand the full scope and intent of the replies. In short, Twitter needs to be revised to allow for at least 2,000 characters. The one thing I do LIKE about Twitter is that I do not have to LISTEN to the interviewees that I do NOT agree with - I can read their verbatim replies and know that the comments are ACTUALLY what they say. Obviously, anyone familiar with journalism knows very well that when some journalists “quote” a politician, the truth is that sometimes the “quote” is often NOT what is actually said. Twitter allows me to “hear” the actual comments truly made. In addition, the upside is that the “cost” of Twitter is NOT an obstruction, such as the cost of airtime on TV or radio. On the matter of the content, I think for a new venue both George and John did a reasonable job. George tried to ask tough questions and John had minimal space in which to answer them without using multiple Twitter entries which is not the intent of the system. It is a type of verbal tennis match in interview form. In response to the Fonzy question: No, Twitter has NOT jumped the shark in this day of electronic media coverage. I do ask for a quick revision to Twitter to allow for at least 2,000 characters on both sides.
4. Suthnautr | 03.18.09
Everything that this article posts is true. Celebrities and breaking news stories do get quick attention. Well followed individuals receive a lot of traffic themselves or direct a lot of traffic to posted links. Event publication and Tweet-ups get people together who have never met, and it even works like a combination of instant messenger and IRQ chat room rolled into one. I worry about it being over capacity though, and am sometimes unable state a concept (an idea made up of two or more simpler rules)in 140 characters or less. But for all it does do, Twitter can and will definitely still do more as new uses are discovered. I have the feeling that if Twitter ever did jump the shark, the shark would be the one that loses.
5. anonymous | 03.18.09
On the other hand, Twitter has yet to demonstrate that it can make money. Like many web start-ups, it’s benefiting from a large influx of interested investors. But there aren’t any advertisements on the site, the SMS service is a drain on capital–I hear rumors they shut this down–and the service is free. When the investors start demanding an ROI, how will Twitter sustain itself? (This isn’t to say that it can’t, but it probably needs to start demonstrating how it will.)
I also agree with the earlier post by “Canada” calling this interview format “stupid”. This represents a resounding step backwards to me in journalism and interviews. While I would for answers to be less rambling, watching it in a character-limited chatroom is more novelty than innovation.
Now that “micro-blog” is a defined term, I choose to coin the above comments as “mini-blog”s. Now all we have to do is define “blog.”
6. Pat | 03.18.09
Twitter didn’t jump the shark, but Stephanopoulos did–he clearly doesn’t understand the medium.
7. Alex | 03.18.09
You don’t have to use it or accept it but you will be a dinosaur very soon with this old school mentality.
8. @fetterless | 03.18.09
good first time! there are twitter add-ons that allow more characters!
Elevator exchanges are the pre-twitter form that salespeople have long practiced being clear and brief between floors… journalist probably did too.
10. sunday weiss | 03.19.09
I like all the new technology with media, audio and visual. It helps keep people honest and transparent, and keeps a accurate unbiased account of the true record. more accurately than a human court reporter. different witnesses to a crime see things different ways, video feedback, or instant replays allow digital annalysis of events unprejudiced by human error in memory.
11. MC | 03.19.09
When you have political operatives hired to replace real journalists, because they became famous for getting someone elected, this is what you get. Bad interviews, slanted reporting and worse commentary.
12. MC | 03.19.09
When you have political operatives hired to replace real journalists, because they became famous for getting someone elected, this is what you get. Bad interviews, slanted reporting and worse commentary.
P.S.: Wanted to mention good post!
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. The McCain ‘Twitterview’: has Twitter jumped the shark? - Christian Science Monitor | Elity | 03.17.09
3. March 19, 2009: AIG’s Bonus Scandal and St. Patty’s Day at the O’Bama White House « HISTORY MUSINGS… Bonnie K. Goodman | 03.19.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. George | 03.17.09
Twitter makes me feel like I’m at SXSW right now. I am getting constant updates and I’m glad.