Irresponsible Reporting by the NY Times About next to normal on Twitter

[macbeth]

Posted: 8/17/09 at 5:34pm

Here's a letter to the editor that a friend of mine just sent in that I thought was worth posting here too about
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/technology/internet/17normal.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

I read your article re: Twitter and Next to Normal in the Times. I have to say- it seems odd that you attribute so much success to Twitter when the account for "Next to Normal" ops in new users to Twitter automatically as opposed to those who choose it at will. Of course they have 550,000- many of those new users signing up don't understand they are following the show. Yes, you could argue those people might then become interested after an automatic flow of information is thrust in front of their screen- but considering the content of the Twitter campaign, that possibility is rather unlikely. Additionally, something like 67% of new user to Twitter sign up and never return. So many of the people "engaging"- aren't even really present. That's obvious when viewing the default icon images of many of their so called "followers".

It seems like such an outlier of the standard Broadway social number- one would assume as a reporter you'd investigate any possible factors to that statistic before handing the campaign all of the credit. It is articles like this that lead producers, studios, and marketers into a frenzy trying to recreate unusually successful events. And I fully support articles of this nature when all the factors are accounted for- but to write a story just to create a headline with no research or insight into the real scope of the way the technology is functioning is just lazy reporting.

Sensationalized media does not inform or educate. And as a reporter for the New York Times, I would assume your job is write stories that present many facts thus concluding an opinion from those facts while also allowing the reader to do the same. It is an unfortunate circumstance when a journalist overlooks this and becomes an authority for the benefit of himself rather than the public.

[fgreene1938]

Posted: 8/17/09 at 6:47pm

WOW...it's just a damn show for God's sake. Health care reform, economic recession, "Next to Normal"....one of these things is not like the others. I think I'll tweet that.

[claudioislove]

Posted: 8/17/09 at 7:31pm

fgreene- the perfect response. Let them save the good reporters for Iraq.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 8/17/09 at 7:45pm

A very over the top response to an article about tweeting a show. Who honestly cares?

Posted: 8/18/09 at 4:06am

Is that letter "Next to Unreadable" to anyone else? Is it that the author lapses into Twitterese or is it just really poorly constructed? I had to read and re-read sentences a couple times to figure out what the point was. Like "it seems odd that you attribute so much success to Twitter when the account for "Next to Normal" ops in new users to Twitter automatically as opposed to those who choose it at will." Eeek....

Updated On: 8/18/09 at 04:06 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 8/18/09 at 4:24pm

I'm with you Joe....a whole lot of "wtf" running through my mind.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/18/09 at 4:40pm

I gave up on the letter about twenty words in. Did he have someone proof it before he sent it to the Times?

[Kalimba]

Posted: 8/18/09 at 4:46pm

It reads like some fan gurl got her panties in a tizzie.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/18/09 at 4:49pm

Ps - Was the friend who wrote the letter you?

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 8/18/09 at 4:53pm

It doesn't matter if the tweets promoted the show or not. If it didn't, at least it was practically free. And it got them an article in the New York Times that wasn't in the theater section.