Yesterday I wrote about how great journalism should be impartial rather than neutral, and today it’s the related subject of distribution mediums – in this case, what should and shouldn’t be reported on via Twitter.

It was sparked by an article by Matthew Ingram over at GigaOm, who is definitely someone worth reading if you’re interested in journalism and the media. I originally tried to leave a comment on his article ‘Are there some things that shouldn’t be tweeted about‘ but when it vanished into the ether upon submission, I figured it made more sense to blog a full response here.

Matthew’s article was sparked by recent outcry in the media community in Boston, due to a sports reporter tweeting from the funeral of the wife of New England Patrios’ owner Bob Kraft, and also references other notable incidents when people have tweeted about personal experiences, such as sexual assault or the death of their child to try and ask whether Twitter is a suitable medium for these topics.

Twitter and suitable content:

I think that perhaps there are a few different issues being rolled into the one question here, and seperating them out might be helpful:

• Is it fine to be tweeting on your smartphone during a funeral, for example?
• Does Twitter differ to reporting on the same event for print or TV?
• Should it be the media community judging as gatekeepers on what is the right medium?

So, the first issue is fairly easy to discuss, as it’s really a question of how an individual reporter is handling themselves at an event – I don’t think many people would necessarily have a complaint about a reporter making notes on paper during the funeral of a prominent public figure, and the comment on Matthew’s article which equates using a smartphone to using a Nintendo DS or playing Angry Birds is pretty disingenuous, as it presumes that the method of reporting is less serious if it’s using technology, rather than a reporter doodling in their notepad. Whether reporting is being done with paper, smartphone, laptop or TV camera, it’s about using the right level of respect and decorum to be able to avoid detracting from event itself – for instance, if proceedings have to stop due to the incessant click-clack of keys being pressed, that would be worthy of critiscism, or if there’s a bank of reporters in the front pew all waving phones around in front of mourners.

Is reporting on Twitter different?

So the mechanics of Twitter are different to those of an article published elsewhere, due to the fact that it’s possible to update in real-time, and the 140 character limit.

The real-time nature of Twitter can be used as an excuse for sloppy spelling and punctuation when you hurry to get a tweet out, but that’s a reflection on the skills and accuracy of the reporter, not the social network itself. If you’re reporting on an event, why would you take less time to craft a tweet than to craft an article headline or your first sentence?

The second critcism is the perception that reporting via Twitter lacks the gravitas of other formats, as if reading ‘Singer Amy Winehouse dead at age 27′ has less impact if it’s not accompanied via a full opinion piece, photos and a byline. That’s quite blatantly a load of old rubbish, as underlined by coverage of the recent tragedy in Oslo, or the Mumbai terrorist attacks on Twitter, for example. If we believe that a well-crafted impactful headline covering an event can stop people in their tracks and perhaps lead them to buying a newspaper when they’ve scanned it on the newstand, why would we believe that a well-crafted impactful tweet would not have the same effect, unless digitising words makes them meaningless?

The last gasps of the media community as gatekeepers?

The process of print publishing with limited space and limitations on who can afford to print or broadcast mass media led to journalists, subs and editors as gatekeepers who made judgements on the right way to present the news in those formats. And that’s completely changed with the availability of formats for news consumption.

As a reader, I can choose print, TV, radio, websites, social networks, podcasts, photo sites, audio microblogs. And that is right which I’m far more empowered to exercise now that I can select from such a range of formats and outlets. Much of my general news information comes from social networks, and without going into the debate over echo chambers and filter failure now, I have yet to see any concrete evidence that has damaged by general news awareness or any serendipity in finding out about events.

However the media community thinks their debate and decision about formats may make any difference to me, I’m not really sure? As digital tools and technology democratise news production and coverage, the odds are that someone somewhere will be covering events and publishing on the format I choose to enjoy, and the decision of my preferred format comes down to my choice, not that of the journalist elite.

So what could be improved in Twitter journalism?

Having said all of that, there is one glaring error which can occur in digital journalism, and which is pronounced in certain cases – consistency. If I follow a reporter for sports updates on scores and transfers, and suddenly it switches to funeral coverage, that can be jarring, as it is when someone switches from general daily updates to discussing the loss of their child or a physical attack.

In the later cases of personal events, that jarring shock and the resulting upset is something that we as readers need to realise is our personal response, and those tweeting shouldn’t feel obliged to hide their thoughts or responses from the network which they may rely on for emotional support (In one of those cases, the local police did have legal reasons for curbing their output, which is understandable).

In the former case of professional journalism, then it’s probably advisable to seperate those reports which are out of context of the general daily output of your account – to allow those who wish to follow to choose without necessarily offending those who would rather not.

But in all cases, readers carry the ultimate decision of what they may or may not find acceptable, and have the choice on social networks to follow or unfollow accounts as they wish – and although stretching the boundaries may carry risks at the moment, the changing opinions of society and readers measured by what they actually do (following, clicking links, rubbernecking at accidents when they drive past), is a good way of seeing what people actually find acceptable, rather than presuming that as the media, we might know readers better than they know themselves. And as much as you may believe society and readers have become more salacious over time, the response to the Huffington Post’s ill-advised Amy Winehouse and small business lessons article is just one example of how readers are more than willing to let you know directly if you’ve overstepped the mark.