#1
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.
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.
