
  This Is Why The Internet (And Twitter) Wins  - Wump
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/27/internet-twitter-tiger-woods/
======
decklin
Yesterday, I was thankful for _not_ paying any attention to the news while I
cooked, served friends, and then relaxed. I turned the radio off and didn't
check any websites. It was nice.

I don't mean to be callous about Mr. Woods' injury, but is this example really
important? To put it a better way: it is of zero (maybe negative) value to me
to hear "X happened to celebrity Y", or "celebrity Z died", for that matter,
45 minutes earlier than I would have otherwise. What _would_ be of value to me
(and seriously, I would pay a lot for this) would be some kind of magic device
that filtered out such items out of my media consumption and coughed up a
precis on Saturday afternoon after I do the crossword.

~~~
bilbo0s
That's a brilliant idea!

I agree I would pay for that!

Plus one to you!

------
notauser
How significant is a 45 minute delay to news that Tiger Woods was in a car
crash?

Unless it's 30 minutes to the start of a tournament and betting hasn't closed
yet the delay is insignificant.

~~~
terpua
I think you are missing the point of the post. Tiger Woods getting into a car
accident in a non-tournament day is for the most part "useless" breaking news.
Some might argue that it's still useless even in a tournament day.

However, what if you received flooding information 45 minutes before it
happens in _your_ area. (I'm from the Philippines and we experienced heavy
flooding recently and my house was nearly flooded b/c the "normal" news
channels didn't know how bad it got before it got really bad). Of course,
that's just one example.

Point is the power of Internet/twitter allows for breaking news that might be
relevant to you and might give you enough time to avoid disaster, etc.

~~~
mattmaroon
You're missing the point of the parent. If CNN breaks it on Twitter, they
COULD break it on cable immediately. They've done it many times when real news
occurred. They COULD break the flooding in your area (and probably would) as
soon as they learned of it. I'm guessing the actual lead time, if it's
something as important as a major flood, is a matter of at most a minute or
two.

Which means that all Twitter in this case did is bombard people with stupidity
30 minutes before cable TV did the same. That's not a value add. If anything,
it's an extra 30 minutes before this stupid fact pushes something useful out
of my brain. Because I avoid Twitter, I knew who won the Battle of Trafalgar
for an extra half hour before cable ruined that.

If you wanted to give an example of Twitter being useful, you'd give one where
some normal person (not a cable news network) broke a story that got big
before the MSM even found out.

~~~
terpua
That is my point. Someone else (a normal person) breaks a major flooding news
in her area via Internet/twitter before CNN or other MSM. In our area at
least, it would be at least 10 minutes or more before our MSM gets any news on
this.

Another recent example, tied to the flooding, we had brownouts but the MSM was
reporting incorrect brownout schedules. We went to twitter and got the tweets
directly from the utility company. This example is not breaking news per se
but it affects our daily lives.

Sorry if that wasn't clear before.

~~~
mattmaroon
Right, but that sadly wasn't the point of the original post. Like most MG
Seigler entries, it was logically incoherent and claimed that Twitter "wins"
because CNN broke a story there before they broke it on their news. That's
just dumb.

------
numair
You know why the Internet _really_ wins? Because I DON'T have to deal with
stupid worthless news like this. Sorry, but unless I suddenly wake up as the
CMO of a sponsor company, a trader with options in such a company, a competing
golfer, or David Murdock (who owns the Sherwood golf club), this news is NOT
essential to my life and I am glad my only connection to it is this stupid
TechCruch article.

By allowing me to customize who and what I consume, the Internet allows me to
get rid of all of the crap that CNN et al try to shovel at me. That's
mainstream media's real problem -- they have completely alienated the most
affluent and intelligent among their readers.

And in case you're wondering what I'd consider "vital news" -- how about the
potential default of a sovereign nation (Dubai) which could trigger a CDS
event which could re-trigger the global financial crisis?

~~~
Wump
_And in case you're wondering what I'd consider "vital news" -- how about the
potential default of a sovereign nation (Dubai) which could trigger a CDS
event which could re-trigger the global financial crisis?_

I think the point is-- no matter what you consider vital news, the Internet is
a better way to get that news faster and more accurately than traditional
mainstream media.

------
bugs
It only wins if it supplies and continues to supply correct and timely
information.

The internet is like the telephone game with millions of people and until
something changes I trust my local news station many times more than the
internet on breaking news stories.

~~~
potatolicious
And this is the part that society has to cope with - at least for the time
being. As a population we are still used to trusting authoritative news
sources, ones that are presumably bound by law, ethics, or policy to verify
their information.

The result is that we _react_ rather quickly to news. This can (and has been)
disastrous in internet communities where the news has turned out to be
incorrect or fraudulent.

The consequence of the Twitter phenomenon is that collectively we all need a
much better bullshit filter than the one we have right now.

------
chollida1
> Early reports had him in serious condition (which remember, is better than
> critical condition) after he apparently hit a fire hydrant and a tree while
> leaving his home in his SUV.

I see this as a problem for twitter and the internet. They got a very
important part of the new wrong.

Tiger Woods has already been released from the hospital and wasn't injured.

------
catone
Actually, here's what MG gets wrong.

The Twitter story was this: "BULLETIN — REPORT: FAMED GOLFER TIGER WOODS
SERIOUSLY INJURED AFTER CRASH NEAR FLORIDA HOME."

And the CNN story (30-45 min later), was this: "(CNN) — Golfer Tiger Woods was
injured in a car accident near his home, Florida officials say."

When all was said and done, which was more correct? The answer is CNN's. Woods
was not "seriously injured," he was treated for facial lacerations and was,
quote "fine," according to his agent
(<http://twitter.com/darrenrovell1/status/6121135958>).

Twitter might win on speed, but CNN ultimately won (this time) on accuracy.
They knew about the Woods incident as soon as everyone else did -- to think
they don't watch Twitter like everyone else would be silly -- but they likely
spent that extra half hour doing what no one on Twitter does: actual
journalism (as in, checking sources).

(Note: I'm personally not a fan of process journalism, something that MG's
boss avidly promotes... report first get the facts later is a sad future if it
is indeed the future of how the news is disseminated, imho.)

------
motters
The question arises - do I really need to know about the details of celebrity
golfer's lifestyles the very second something happens? If I read the news the
following day, would that really make a significant difference to my life?

Maybe if I was an professional golfer it would.

But I generally agree with the idea that microblogging, blogs and other sorts
of online media will eventually replace newspapers and even TV news reporting.
Most newspapers already have a significant online presence and an entourage of
bloggers.

------
thingie
Win what? I don't even know who Tiger Wood is. And I certainly don't care if
he had some accident or whatever so much, that I would want more than a short
notice later that day (in fact, I simply don't need to know it at all).

If you think that "win" is delivering uninteresting tabloid allcaps "news" 60
minutes ahead of CNN, then, well... you have a problem.

~~~
notauser
While I generally agree with your point the way you present it smacks a little
bit of <http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694>

(At the very least if you have been to an airport in the last 5 years you will
have seen an Accenture ad on a wall somewhere.)

~~~
thingie
While it is possible that I have heard the name before, I didn't remember it.
I don't live in the USA and I'm not interested in golf, I might have heard the
name few times in similar short notices, like I have heard about thousands of
other people that I don't remember either. It's quite simple, really, I didn't
know who TW is, and said that only to stress my point. It's surprising to me
that it could be considered such a basic knowledge.

------
jodrellblank
I didn't hear it from the news on TV or Radio or the web or BBC News alerts,
via email, IM or twitter.

Which is why the TV news wins over the internet - because I can turn it off.
Misery from all over the world doesn't route around the TV's off button and
get to me anyway - well, I guess it _does_ these days. :(

"The internet treats off buttons as damage and routes around them", to
paraphrase a famous comment.

