Three Reasons to Love the Twitter Hate

Longtime Twitteurs are in a hyperventilating snit over the ridicule being heaped on their plaything  by, among others, the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd, Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart and Doonesbury’s Garry Trudeau.

I’m a longtime Twitteur, semi-evangelical and pretty well engaged with it on a daily basis. By this point it is as integrated in my being as lymph. But I think the ridicule is a delightful, even important development.

1. It’s a great time for a Twitter reality check.

It’s easy for insiders to get swayed by early adopter enthusiasm and begin to assume that anybody who doesn’t “get it” is a fool, rube or coward. It’s warm and nice in an echo chamber ringing with validation and self-love. It’s how Scientology works, and both political parties. Yet truth told, all the Twitter-bashing by people I respect has caused me to raise some of the existential questions about this maddeningly powerful little platform that I ignore on a daily basis. What’s gold and what’s garbage? What’s time wasted and a valuable investment? Who exactly is this persona I’m creating through accumulated actions rather than intent? I’m guessing the TwitterTrashing is doing the same for others, including–perhaps especially–those whose knickers are currently most entangled by it.

2. It’s making Twitter visible to the public at large in a usefully skeptical context.

It is no coincidence that Twitter’s [alleged] doubling of users from around 7 million to about 14 million in the past few months has occurred during the time mainstream media has been reporting on its use and abuse and [at the same time] adopting it in their work [while often ridiculing each other for doing so]. It’s healthy for mass culture to first  encounter Twitter knowing that Senator Buttwhistle has made a fool of himself on the floor and that Twitter helped citizens of Moldova communicate about their street protests. This prevents childish enthusiasm or ignorant dismissal, neither of which is productive.

3. Mass resistance of a technology by “thought leaders” is a dependable predictor of its imminent acceptance.

As a journalist covering personal technology for The Washington Post back in [I am not making this up] 1994, I recall vividly how much cultural pushback there was against the Web, mobile computing, cell phones, DVD players and even, for god’s sake, e-mail. For instance: the late, legendary Meg Greenfield, editorial page editor of the Post at that time, famously declared that she would not accept any submissions by e-mail, that anyone who truly had important things to say would send their work on paper, via U.S. mail or hand messenger. When we got that internal memo [by e-mail!], my colleague Rob Pegoraro and I wondered how quickly she would capitulate. Answer: Less than 3 months.

So I’m feeling good about this: Personal reality check, public introduction with skeptical context, and evidence of imminent acceptance.

So bring it on, Twitter-bashers, and welcome to this odd, infuriating and [ultimately, inevitably] culturally transforming technology.

My “Future of Newspapers” Hearing Testimony

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, fellow Americans:

I want to thank you for inviting me to testify before the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet to discuss The Future of Newspapers.

I have no idea why you invited me, since I am just a former newsroom toiler who fled for the digital world about three years ago and never looked back, except to use my blog to roll stinkbombs into American newsrooms in order to smoke out the cowards, fools and sentimentalists who are holding back the very innovations that can not only save journalism but allow it to thrive in spectacular and mind-bending ways none of us can imagine yet.

Note how I said “save journalism,” not “save newspapers.”

These are very different things. Journalism–let’s define that, just to be quick, as independent, energetic reporting on significant matters of public importance–can reach the public any number of ways.

It just so happens that for a long time it was economically feasible, indeed very rewarding, to distribute journalism via a process involving forest products, petroleum distillates, rail cars, really big energy-hog printing presses that are a hoot to watch, various conveyances powered by internal combustion engines, plastic bags, union labor, etc.

There are many ways, nearly all more time-, labor- and resource-efficient, to distribute this journalism. The Internet comes immediately to mind, but we’ll get to that in a second. By suggesting it’s important to “save” newspapers you are essentially saying you want to preserve the stunningly inefficient distribution process described above.

This is a bit like saying you want to feed America’s hungry by saving the tin-can industry.

Dudes [can I call you that?]: Focus on delivering the food, not on the container it comes in.

As a way to help committee members stay focused on this, I have asked my supporters–which is to say, both regular readers of my blog–to attend today’s hearing and shout the word JOURNALISM whenever a panelist or witness uses the word “newspapers.” I understand this may be disruptive to the proceedings, but please know that they are doing this as patriotic Americans who believe deeply, as I do, that without independent journalism America would be an even scarier place than it is now.

For instance, all that hoo-ha about “government transparency” wouldn’t mean squat without smart, skeptical, literate people of no obvious political affiliation who can help explain what it means to the public. I’d say that’s a good job for journalists right now, regardless of whether their work is delivered via the Internet, Kindle, iPhone, NPR podcast, god-help-usTwitter, e-mail or — hey, it’s still sort of a free country — ink on paper.

The problem is, the very well-intentioned, hard-working and absolutely bug-eyed terrified newspaper executives of today, some of whom are sitting so close to me I can smell their deodorant, are so determined to protect the cash flow derived from newspapers that they are stifling the innovations that can transform journalism so it serves members of today’s public, who consume and use information in very different ways.

It sounds crazy, but I’d much rather see a news organization quit publishing in print today–this afternoon is one idea–while it still has a positive balance sheet, a line of credit and some well-trained professional journalists on the payroll, than to see them ride the revenue curve all the way into the basement.

If they keep doing what they’re doing until they’re bankrupt, seized by creditors or overtaken by rogue board members who want to sell for scrap, all that invaluable human capital–journalistic talent, passion, experience–will be lost, scattered, squandered. They’d have nothing left to invest in creating the journalism of the future. And then look at who will be left to carry the values of journalism forward.

I’m guessing that a pull-the-paper-plug-today plan would lead to several possible outcomes for newspaper companies:

• They’d whither and die due to inability to adapt. It’s not clear whether they’d survive for a longer or shorter time than if they kept putting out a printed newspaper every day. I’d like a look at the numbers, though.
• They’d get bought by newer, nimbler companies that understand that original journalism has economic value and are furiously committed to capturing that value in a new media environment. At least some of the journalism DNA would convey
• They’d try a bunch of dramatic new things with content, delivery and businesses arrangements, most of which would fail but some of which could be small or even breakthrough journalistic successes or–who knows?–money makers

Frankly I don’t see a downside to any of those. The worst case is imminent death, which is pretty likely either way. The best case is finding a way to sustain at least some journalism in today’s media environment.

The middle ground is to go out in a blaze of creative glory, hoping at least to be remembered as a company that did its best when it mattered most and contributed to the body of work that helps others invent the future of journalism.

The alternative is continuing to publish in the most expensive way available, cutting all other costs–including journalism! and journalists! the most precious national resources on the table!–in order to sustain a distribution model that is being rejected by the public and advertisers with stunning speed and certainty. I am not a criminal lawyer, but isn’t that against the law or something?

Lately some government officials have talked about needing to save companies that are “too big to fail.”

I submit that companies that continue to devote their most valuable resources to print-based products are “too foolish to succeed.”

Members of the committee, fellow Americans, I implore you: Save journalism by letting the free market take its course. Some newspapers must die so journalism can live.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts.

Is there a back exit to this room?

Addendum, Thursday, April 23: Before I wrote the above item, I read a Tweet of Jeff Jarvis’s, saying that he’d written his fake testimony to the committee. This annoyed the hell out of me, since I was sure my idea was so clever that nobody else would think of it. Ha. But I went ahead and wrote mine anyway–without reading his. Honest. I just did read it. While his approach is characteristically more refined and coherent, and probably less insulting to those who disagree with him [he makes no references to stinkbombs or deodorant, for example], the ideas we share are eerily similar.  Actually, the similarity isn’t eerie, since I’ve been reading Jarvis for a long time and think he’s brilliant, at least on a good day with the wind at his back. Anyhow: Just wanted to say.

Health 2.0 Debut: Social Media for IBS

Dr. Douglas Farrago, a family physician in Auburn, Maine, has debuted a new social media tool, one that ingeniously leverages the power of Twitter to serve patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome. His introduction is timed to the opening of the Health 2.0 Conference in Boston.

The application allows patients to connect with their physicians and other IBS patients to share real-time information, including messages of support and diagnostic photographs.

If something smells funny, it should be noted that Dr. Farrago is the creator of Placebo Journal, the funniest medical journal you’ll ever read, a sort of Mad Magazine-meets-JAMA. The above image is available for all you Health2.0 geeks and gastroenterologists.

News Wants to Be Social: The Video

I’m doing some catch up here.

A couple of weeks ago I was honored to moderate a panel on journalists’ use of social media at a conference called NVision, a day-long meeting held at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. It was supported by the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland, the Knight Foundation, the Online News Association and the Newspaper Guild.

Below is a video of our panel, which featured Patrick Cooper, new media guy at USA Today; Etan Horowitz, tech columnist and social media power user at the Orlando Sentinel; Scott Karp, CEO of journalists’ social platform Publish2; and Jennifer Golbeck, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland and director of the university’s MINDSWAP Semantic Web Lab.

These folks were great, full of diverse perspectives, vivid examples and good humor.

To get past my intro, which catches me in full evangelical bluster, skip directly to 1:30 in the video.

Sorry, the embed code is misbehaving, so you’ll need to click on the static image below to go to the video. That’s a picture of Etan.

And here’s my pre-conference blog entry, to which I’ve added a couple of other post-conference writeups.

New Media Rorschach Test for Journalists

Test Instructions

Take a few moments to stare at these inkblots:

The New York Times eliminates sections, reorganizes newsroom

The Washington Post eliminates sections, reorganizes newsroom

Diagnosis:

If these images produce feelings of doom, despair and anger, you are sentimental, nostalgic, resistant to change and are poorly engaged with reality. Rx: Retirement or an editing job for a government agency.

If these images produce feelings of excitement, curiosity and hope, you are clear-headed, forward-looking, adaptable and culturally aware. Rx: Double down on the blog, learn to use that Flip cam, and prepare for a thrill ride.

If you see a ducky being disemboweled by witch, seek medical help immediately.

Social Media for Doctors, Hospitals and other Live-Savers

If it’s Wednesday, it’s time for another social media panel, this time at the American Medical Association’s 29th annual Medical Communications Conference in Albuquerque, N.M. I’ll be leading a panel featuring Twitter MD and Dr. Gwenn and a third “virual panelist,” an original, high-concept onstage gambit I concocted last night with a combination of jet lag and a few commonly available adult beverages.

We’ll talk about how doctors, hospitals, medical communicators and others can use social media to reach the public, without anybody getting hurt.

We’ll see how that goes.

Lunch speaker is Obama administration Surgeon General speculatee and subsequent withdrawee Dr. Sanjay Gupta of CNN, who is really good as a TV medical guy but who seems way too young to be getting a “Lifetime Achievement Award.” Apparently he got his big break at this conference years ago so this is a kind of triumphant homecoming.

Anyway: Gotta run. I’ll update later.