# Will Twitter SAVE newspapers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 6, 2012, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-twitter-save-newspapers/624329 "2012-06-06T23:30:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2012, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-twitter-save-newspapers/624329/1 "2012-06-06T23:30:06Z")
Inspired by [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=398571) thread. At 4:12 PM (I assume EST) on June 5, 2012, tazeen [tweeted](https://twitter.com/tazeen/status/210101809061179392): > [@](#): > > So Al-Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al-Libi was killed in a drone strike in Pakistan. I long for the day when they die elsewhere, not in Pakistan. Sometime after that, Declan Walsh or Eric Schmitt or someone else at _The New York Times_ saw that tweet and used it to end the leading story, Al Qaeda’s No. 2 Said To Be Killed In A Drone Strike, on the front page of _The New York Times_, June 6, 2012. To put this into perspective, at 7:30 PM on June 5, 2012, AmandaBynes [tweeted](https://twitter.com/AmandaBynes/status/210151606975598595): > [@](#): > > Hey @BarackObama… I don’t drink. Please fire the cop who arrested me. I also don’t hit and run. The end. Timing is everything. Hilarious. Where’s the [text from Hillary](http://textsfromhillaryclinton.tumblr.com/) where the President asks the Secretary of State to respond to AmandaBynes’ tweet? As much as I love Amanda Bynes, I think _The New York Times_ made the right editorial decision to incorporate the tweet by tazeen into the front page story and not the tweet by AmandaBynes. The tweet by AmandaBynes does not belong in _The New York Times_ (unless for some reason the President responds to her tweet); however, the tweet by tazeen does. There is a quote by Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary. There are two quotes by American officials, speaking anonymously. There is a quote by Bill Roggio of the Long War Journal. There is a quote by a senior Pakistani security official, speaking anonymously. And there is a quote by Tazeen Jay, a blogger. The last quote is significant. In the future, _The New York Times_ and other newspapers will get most, if not all, of their quotes from Twitter. Indeed, Twitter will help “write” newspaper articles and newspapers, in turn, will give a platform for Twitter. The quote by Tazeen Jay that was from Twitter, arguably, adds to the article. Without Twitter, someone like her would not make it into _The New York Times_. I’m sure that the President, upon reading that article, would think that what Tazeen Jay had to say is as just as important, if not more important, than what Jay Carney, his Press Secretary, had to say. All newspapers need to do is: use more tweets as quotes and have an E-Edition of the paper edition with hyperlinks so that readers can go from the front page to A6 and from a quote to the tweet citing the quote. Newspapers without Twitter are stale, Twitter without newspapers is chaos. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2012, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-twitter-save-newspapers/624329/2 "2012-06-06T23:42:24Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > At 4:12 PM (I assume EST) on June 5, 2012, tazeen [tweeted](https://twitter.com/tazeen/status/210101809061179392): > > Sometime after that, Declan Walsh or Eric Schmitt or someone else at _The New York Times_ saw that tweet and used it to end the leading story, Al Qaeda’s No. 2 Said To Be Killed In A Drone Strike, on the front page of _The New York Times_, June 6, 2012. . . . > > There is a quote by Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary. There are two quotes by American officials, speaking anonymously. There is a quote by Bill Roggio of the Long War Journal. There is a quote by a senior Pakistani security official, speaking anonymously. And there is a quote by Tazeen Jay, a blogger. The last quote is significant. > > In the future, _The New York Times_ and other newspapers will get most, if not all, of their quotes from Twitter. Indeed, Twitter will help “write” newspaper articles and newspapers, in turn, will give a platform for Twitter. The quote by Tazeen Jay that was from Twitter, arguably, adds to the article. Without Twitter, someone like her would not make it into _The New York Times_. I’m sure that the President, upon reading that article, would think that what Tazeen Jay had to say is as just as important, if not more important, than what Jay Carney, his Press Secretary, had to say. Are you familiar with the phrase “burying the lede?” Because that’s exactly what you are doing in describing the newspaper article. You’re saying the Twitter quote is the most important part of the whole story, when it is actually the very last line in the story. The article starts out using anonymous sources, proceeds to White House spokesmen on the record, continues to on-the-record sources outside of government, goes to anonymous foreign sources, and then has twelve words from a blogger. By saying that the Twitter source is more important than the five or so sources that precede it, you are burying the lede. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2012, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-twitter-save-newspapers/624329/3 "2012-06-07T03:46:25Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Are you familiar with the phrase “burying the lede?” Yes. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Because that’s exactly what you are doing in describing the newspaper article. I was describing the newspaper article. I was being descriptive NOT perscriptive. I was describing the sources in the order in which they were quoted NOT the order in which they _should_ have been quoted. > [@Ravenman](#): > > You’re saying the Twitter quote is the most important part of the whole story, when it is actually the very last line in the story. The article starts out using anonymous sources, proceeds to White House spokesmen on the record, continues to on-the-record sources outside of government, goes to anonymous foreign sources, and then has twelve words from a blogger. That’s my point. Before Twitter, newspapers had quotes from sources. Now, newspapers are starting to have \*tweets \*from sources. Of course, tweets are quotes. However, what is significant is that Tazeen Jay posted that tweet not likely having the intention of it being in _The New York Times_. No one at _The New York Times_ contacted Tazeen Jay and, conversely, Tanzeen Jay did not contact anyone at _The New York Times_. _Someone_ at _The New York Times_ found that tweet on Twitter and decided to include it in the article, albeit at the very end. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2012, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-twitter-save-newspapers/624329/4 "2012-06-07T03:49:01Z")
Say newspapers can get their quotes from Twitter instead of emails or phone calls. How does that save them exactly? Does it bring in millions of dollars in ad revenue somehow? ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2012, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-twitter-save-newspapers/624329/5 "2012-06-07T03:54:32Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Say newspapers can get their quotes from Twitter instead of emails or phone calls. How does that save them exactly? Does it bring in millions of dollars in ad revenue somehow? Persumably, the same way Twitter makes money. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2012, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-twitter-save-newspapers/624329/6 "2012-06-07T03:56:38Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Persumably, the same way Twitter makes money. Newspapers already have ads. I am not sure you’ve thought this through unless you meant to ask ‘Will Twitter SAVE newspapers a couple of minutes here and there?’ ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2012, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-twitter-save-newspapers/624329/7 "2012-06-07T14:15:42Z")
What a great model for journalism: anything more than 140 characters is too much information. Call me when the New York Times starts using the Straight Dope Message Board as a source. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2012, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-twitter-save-newspapers/624329/8 "2012-06-07T16:27:14Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > What a great model for journalism: anything more than 140 characters is too much information. Are you familiar with the term “sound bite”? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2012, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-twitter-save-newspapers/624329/9 "2012-06-07T16:36:36Z")
Yes. That’s a term used for TV and radio journalism. Print uses quotes, which they can get from Twitter or through other means. Would you mind explaining what your thesis is exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-twitter-save-newspapers/624329/10 "2012-06-07T17:11:31Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Are you familiar with the term “sound bite”? Usually, sound bites are short statements edited from a longer context to pass along one important thought. Sound bites generally are not the entire thought – Twitter is nothing but sound bites without context. Is that really what you expect of quality journalism? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2012, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-twitter-save-newspapers/624329/11 "2012-06-07T17:17:59Z")
I’m wondering if **Kozmik** thinks newspapers employ tons of reporters who do nothing except man the phones and call sources for comments on stories, and if those reporters will be made superfluous by Twitter - saving the newspapers money and thus fixing their business model by offsetting all the revenue they’ve lost from advertisers over the years. That’s not how it works, though. Most quotes are obtained by the reporter covering the story in the first place. Those reporters may save a few minutes by getting quotes from Twitter, but that’s about it. And Twitter is not going to be the source of that many quotes because it just doesn’t have enough users. You can get a quote from a politician or big company on Twitter, but with private citizens it’s going to be hit or miss. It’d be a good source of reaction quotes but a terrible substitute for a full interview, for example. And people who fear retribution aren’t going to use Twitter. Getting a quote is a necessary part of a story but it’s only a small part of it. Or does the OP think newspapers will just be compilations of daily tweets, maybe with a little commentary? There are already websites that do that, so there’s little or no need for a newspaper to do it. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2012, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-twitter-save-newspapers/624329/12 "2012-06-07T17:44:20Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Or does the OP think newspapers will just be compilations of daily tweets, maybe with a little commentary? There are already websites that do that, so there’s little or no need for a newspaper to do it. And I will put this charitably: those websites do not quite measure up to the quality of the New York Times. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2012, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-twitter-save-newspapers/624329/13 "2012-06-07T18:01:34Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > And I will put this charitably: those websites do not quite measure up to the quality of the New York Times. Not that they’re trying to. We’re talking about celebrity gossip sites here, and it’s hard to see other types of media outlets getting a significant amount of content from Twitter. A soundbyte is not a story. It’s not a replacement for a story, and rarely does it generate a story. When it does, it tends to be longer-term analysis rather than hard news. Soundbytes can sum up a story and bring clarity, but a new source of kicker quotes and reactions is not what newspapers are looking for. It’s true that Twitter has changed the way news stories are broken, covered, and analyzed, but the ways in which it has done so have not been beneficial to newspapers. They just point out one of the biggest problems facing print journalism, and certainly none of this addresses declining revenue from advertisements and subscriptions. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2012, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-twitter-save-newspapers/624329/14 "2012-06-07T18:44:02Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Twitter is nothing but sound bites without context. Newspapers provide the context; Twitter provides (some of) the content. > [@Marley23](#): > > It’s true that Twitter has changed the way news stories are broken, covered, and analyzed, but the ways in which it has done so have not been beneficial to newspapers. Why not? Do you think it could be done in a way that would add to articles and benefit newspapers? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2012, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-twitter-save-newspapers/624329/15 "2012-06-07T19:01:37Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Newspapers provide the context; Twitter provides (some of) the content. It proves a tiny fraction of the content. How does that save newspapers? > [@](#): > > Why not? Twitter can be updated almost instantly and a print newspaper can’t. Websites can be updated faster and maybe we’ll get to full, updatable e-newspapers at some point, but we’re not there right now. If it does happen maybe THAT would save newspaper journalism, but Twitter wouldn’t. > [@](#): > > Do you think it could be done in a way that would add to articles and benefit newspapers? Like I said, an additional source of quotes does not exactly revolutionize the newspaper business. I don’t see how Twitter can be much more than that from a newspaper perspective. OK, one day they can source quotes directly from Twitter with links. So?