This past year I was the Social Media Coordinator for a
University of Georgia campus magazine called InfUSion. InfUSion Magazine was
started in 1989 in the Office of Multicultural Services and Programs (MSP) and
was the first multicultural student-run magazine at UGA.
Working as a staff member of this magazine has opened my
eyes to the impact that social media can have on news publications (big and
small). Upon coming to the UK and taking part in the UGA at Oxford program, I
became interested in the UK’s use of social media, and how it differed from
social media use of publications in the United States.
Like Erin said in her post, one of the first things I did
when I got to Trinity College (after taking a nap, of course) was following BBC
on twitter. And after researching the Financial Times for our first excursion,
I followed them as well.
Right away, I noticed a few differences in the way that
these two UK news outlets used social media (specifically twitter) compared to
American outlets. The FT and BBC had shorter tweets that were more direct. They
didn’t use all of the characters afforded to them, and they don’t allow social
media to set their agenda. For these media outlets, social media is just a tool
used to direct information seekers to their website.
When we toured the Financial Times on our excursion,
Christopher Grimes, a Grady College alumnus, mentioned the same idea. At the
FT, their goal in using social media was to draw in readers to their website,
not act as a replacement for their website. Grimes mentioned posting a funny
Vine video on Facebook and Twitter for people to share with friends and
followers. But the overall goal of that video was not purely entertainment; the
goal was to inform the public about their publication and how they can read a
columnist’s story one day early.
From what I have seen American news outlets use social media
a little differently. First off, some American media organizations give the
whole story away in their tweets. Readers aren’t clicking through to their
websites, and they aren’t receiving other news updates. Secondly, these outlets
typically have more sensational tweets, and more tweets purely for
entertainment, which take away from their informative tweets. The public, not
the media organizations, sets the agenda that produces these sensational
entertainment tweets.
But that is not to say everything American news outlets do
on social media is wrong or bad. There are many similarities between the more
reputable news sources in the US and the UK news sources I have seen on
Twitter. I’m sure I can also find UK new outlets that tweet sensational news,
like the United States. Across the board, media organizations can learn from
the FT and BBC, as well as the Associated Press, about how to best use social
media.
When looking at social media use by media organizations, I
think the two most important topics to consider are agenda setting and framing.
Media organizations need to make sure that they are getting their messages
across correctly, which can be difficult with 140 characters or less. When
communication isn’t interpersonal things can easily be misinterpreted. These
outlets need to make sure that they are properly framing their messages, and
interacting with their publics, so that if something is misunderstood it
doesn’t get blown out of proportion. One tweet can make a lot of impact.
Ashlyn, your observations of British social media were really spot on. The majority of my twitter feed is tweets from local news outlets like the AJC or WSBTV. I notice how these local outlets practice headline writing for their tweets. On the other hand, the BBC takes some of the fluff away and almost sums up the gist of the entire story in their tweet. As the younger generation is consistently taking to social media for their news, I think American outlets should start modeling HOW they tweet after the BBC. Attention is better captured when concise quotes are incorporated into a tweet and information is stated simply. Also when talking about framing, I agree with you in that media outlets have a power to alter how its followers respond to information, so why not tweet less about celebrity gossip (for example) and focus on more thought-provoking issues and see how followers grow from that?
ReplyDeleteAshlyn, I thought about writing a blog post about something I saw pertaining to tweets. I wasn't really thinking about the way news outlets use their own accounts though. I was thinking about the way they interpret tweets. It seems like an entire branch of the journalism profession is devoted to interpreting celebrity tweets. I was watching a Jalen Rose podcast about the NBA today and he mentioned that when it comes to tweets, the media tends to get an inch and take it a mile. In other words, they'll develop entire story lines off the basis of a single tweet by a celebrity (and these story lines often fall apart). I think of a recent incident, when Lebron James tweeted that Shabazz Napier was his favorite player in the NBA draft, and the Miami Heat then traded up to draft Napier. The story line that then formed was that the Heat drafted Napier to high because they wanted to keep their star (Lebron) around, and placating him was the best way to do it. Now, this may be true, especially on the side of the Heat. I'm willing to believe that Pat Reilly thought that drafting Napier would make Lebron want to stick around. But Lebron wound up skipping town anyhow and signing a contract with Cleveland.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am getting at here is that it's interesting how twitter posts of 140 characters or less have literally become the source of ENTIRE news articles, and even at times features. I've read 1,500 words written on a single tweet by Childish Gambino. The fact that twitter allows a whole lot of people to say a whole lot of regrettable things (or do regrettable things in the case of the Heat) illustrates the power of social media. The sensationalism is obviously most prominent in the entertainment industry, and I hope it doesn't become AS sensationalist in critical areas of news coverage. Here's to hoping we start accepting all of Obama's tweets as executive-orders-to-come or declarations of war.