Word-whore. I write 'em. I talk 'em. Information, politics, media, and the cybers. I drink. I use bad words. All publication is a political act. All communication is propaganda. All art is pornography. All business is personal. All hail Eris! Vive les poissons rouges sauvages!
I know we shouldn’t feed the pied currawongs, but they actually came looking for food today. There wasn’t any. But when I put some out, this chap returned a few minutes later — scoffing a few while keeping a wary eye for the cats dozing only a few metres away, then taking a few spare nuggets back for the juveniles in their tree.
Those of you who’ve been reading me for a while will know I get frustrated by the curmudgeonly journalists who whinge that the end of the world is nigh. (If not, here’s a catch-up reading list.) Finally today I found a more positive view with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Reuters news editor David Schlesinger has been using Twitter to cover the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. His live tweets broke news even faster than Reuters’ own news wires. But is he worried this is the end of journalism? No.
Bring it on, I say!
There’s a nice slab of Schlesinger’s full blog post, as well as the comment I posted, over the fold.
Continue reading “Finally, something positive about journalism and Twitter!”
The Letters Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald confirms today that there’s little support for Senator Conroy’s Rabbit-Proof Firewall. “There was near unanimity on the date when the Federal Government’s internet filter should be implemented — never. One or two sided with Jim Wallace’s opinion piece, but many more put cogent and scornful arguments against.” I’ve already had my say.
Why, exactly, is this confused-looking concrete giraffe in Dixon Street, the heart of Sydney’s Chinatown?
It’s not like they have giraffes in China. It’s not like there’s a giraffe in the Chinese zodiac. It’s not like giraffes are a good-luck charm or anything. WFT? Please explain!
Stilgherrian’s links for 31 January 2009, arranged by intensity of floral attitude:
Since being listed as an “interesting Aussie Twitter user” at NEWS.com.au the other night, I’ve gained 300-ish new followers. Here’s how I’ve been deciding who to follow back.
First, though, I don’t think Twitter starts to make sense unless you have a reasonable number of people in your network. For me, the penny dropped when I had about 50 followers and followees, and you actually interact with them. At that point I started to see the live communication rippling through the hyperconnected mob. It helped that I already knew some well-connected geeks to get the ball rolling.
Once you hit hundreds of followers, though, there’s a phase shift. You simply can’t see everything that happens. It scrolls by too fast. At first that’s stressful — until you realise there’s always more in the world than you can ever experience. So another penny drops, and you detach. Zen. The Twitter-river flows on 24/7, but you don’t stop to watch every fish.
I use Tweetdeck most of the time, not Twitter’s standard web interface, because I can create groups of people. The unfiltered Twitterstream rolls by on the left of my screen, with separate groups for close friends, for media contacts I need to keep an eye on, direct messages and so on. Another panel shows everyone who replies to me or mentions me. So while I can’t see everything on the main stream, just mentioning me will grab my attention.
(I daresay it changes again when you’re like Stephen Fry with more than 88,000 followers. [Update 5 February 2009: It’s now more than 122,000.] May the gods forbid I reach that level of fame! He wouldn’t even be able to monitor all his @replies and DMs!)
So, how do I choose who to follow? Here’s what I’ve noticed today.