No.1 Faster. Quicker news. Twitter is a medium of the moment. Now v. later on TV after editorial treatment.
No.2 More channels. Diversity, democracy. Everyone is on twitter, but TV freq’s limited by govt to big networks.
No.3 Community. Social media allows individual to make own intimate network. TV always speaking to mass audience.
No.4 Interaction. Links. User can directly discuss, support, create content. TV inert, dictatorial, scheduled.
No.5 Proximity. Authentic first hand official info v. TV’s edited soundbites. Can follow presidents, PMs, popes.
No.6 Better platform. Twitter is standard everywhere, and internet in any form beats a clunky TV dish or aerial.
No.7 Brevity. 140 characters brings clarity to a point. TV shows 140+ mins clearly have no point, esp. incl ads.
No.8 Less Ads. No ‘Go Harvey! Go!’ every 12 mins on Twitter. TV eating itself with gross consumptionist nagging.
No.9 Stats are clean. We can all see follow rate inTwitter for audience amount but TV’s ratings opaque, selective.
No.10 Because what would piss you off more: the TV signal stuck on ‘rainfade’, or twitter refusing to refresh?
I agree with most you say. I’d subscribe if it were PUBLICLY owned (or even mutiple interest privately owned). Meantime I’m happy to sideline and watch in amusement. – whilst admiring the creator’s commitment to ‘democracy’ – I’ve seen past attempts sell out – almost en masse. It just takes a Google fascist with an ego to realise it wasn’t all that worth it. There’s an entire Arab Spring that’s possibly in agreement.
How well did that fella – err, what’s his name? ye Mussolino, or Mussolini maybe – how well did he do when it all came time to pay the piper?
ll declare my sympathy now – save us all a lot of time
Comments are closed.