so do we rename twitter "twicker?"

As the tragedy on the DC Metro unfolds, one twitterer votes with his tweet on whether twitter is community or media: lenpilot Not to be disrespetful But there is a lot of METRO info coming through twitter now Please save your prayers for offline and later

More on the events in DC here.

from teheran

Photo on twitpic from protests in Tehran's Enghelab Square from abbaspour:

Follow Katrin, PersianWiki or Jim Sciutto on Twitter for more ...

what up alessandra stanley?

NYT TV critic Alessandra Stanley says that Stephen Colbert's shows from Iraq were more about the U.S. viewing audience than they were about the troops, unlike the famous USO trips by Bob Hope, who she says was "mindful" of the troops' mood and provided "comfort."

That's judgmental enough, if you ask me--I doubt that the men and women in Colbert's audience felt ignored--but Stanley saves her most insensitive comments for the troops themselves:

Today’s troops are hardly starved for entertainment; they have laptops, video cameras, satellite phones and every iteration of the Internet, including Skype, Facebook and Gchats. They stay tuned to television, even Comedy Central. Mr. Colbert’s show is broadcast at 6:30 and 11:30 p.m. Central European time on the American Forces Network. He worked in references to "The Real Housewives of New Jersey" and even the bickering stars of "Jon & Kate Plus 8."

What point does it possibly prove to explain that the under-armored, stop-lossed troops can watch Bravo? Never mind over 4,300 American deaths and over 30,000 (acknowledged) wounded, why do they need the distraction of a ratings-hungry celebrity when they have iPhones?

Stanley's cynicism about Colbert's motives ("Normally celebrities go to combat zones with the U.S.O. In this case Mr. Colbert took the U.S.O. on a trip with Comedy Central.") and armchair emphasis on soldiers' access to media are points that at least belong in the story. But what's up with this crack?

Mr. Colbert’s audience on Comedy Central isn’t very large (a little over a million on a good day), but he has cachet with young and would-be hip viewers who get most of their news from iPhone applications, blogs and comedy shows.

A little over a million? That's about the same daily audience for the print edition of The New York Times, according to The Times. But apparently, it's a million different people, since the blog-fed, attention-deficit Colbert crowd would never have the time or seriousness to read a newspaper. If only Bob Hope was still around to remind them, or to ask his USO buddy Rita Hayworth to explain things.

The article reads so defensive that you wonder if print journalism's battle with blogs and "fake news" is the conflict foremost in her mind. Colbert can't do anything right, she seems to say, because he's the harbinger of print's demise.

An entertainer who takes the time to actually go to Iraq is doing more than pandering to stateside viewers. With her digs at Colbert, the TV audience and the live audience of soldiers (who apparently didn't need to see him in person anyway), Stanley sounds as self-interested as her characterization of Colbert.

Maybe Stanley longs for a time when we trusted journalists to report on wars and comedians knew their place. Maybe if she spent more time Gchatsing with would-be hipsters she'd find out that she can still enjoy those classic moments on YouTube.

Photo from Army.mil on Flickr

"clearwash"

If a whitewash is when you make something sound more harmless than it is (like, say, Gulf War Syndrome) and a greenwash is when you make something sound more eco-friendly than it is (like, say, the Clear Skies Initiative), then I propose when something is heralded as transparent but really is not, that we call it a "clearwash."

by lowland_dreamer, flickr

bittertweet

In a world where social media has arrived centerstage because it breaks the wall between community activity and trusted information and allows the best of each to be promoted by the other, why in the world would twitter take the retrograde step of hiding from view public comments from your friends addressed to people you don't know yet? Here's a rundown from ReadWriteWeb of the problem with this (found thanks to tweeting by JayRosen).

I'm trying to think of the best analogy for this. A party where no one you didn't know could come? Or one where your friends could bring their interesting friends but you couldn't talk to them or get their phone numbers? Or maybe one where only your friends can come to the party, but they can text with their friends across town?

In a comment, Michael points out that strictly-defined twitter "replies," have never been especially popular reading among the "non-targets" of the replies, which he seems to base on the fact that only 2% of users selected the filter.

I may need to understand more because that doesn't seem like the point. The serendipity of new interesting people is never the MOST important thing in a public commons like twitter. It's an essential THIRD or FOURTH most important thing. Like the tweet from @ScottHepburn cited on ReadWriteWeb suggests, you may not go to a loud bar to meet strangers, but it feels lame taking your friends to an empty bar.

For the change by twitter to make sense, we have to assume that social twitter norms are firmly established and the public use of @replies to address a single person are somehow understood as "not for the rest of us," while the use of @mentions (cites or recommendations of people LATER in your 140 characters but not used as a form of address at the START of the message) is also firmly understood as "now you may click here."

If twitter thought this distinction was so clear, why did they recently change users' own "@replies" button to "@yourname" and include BOTH mentions and "direct address" messages in one list for you?

The whole thing's stupid - and one is tempted to agree with the post I saw speculating that twitter is trying to save server space (or something similar - since I don't know their setup at all and perhaps it doesn't even save any).

UPDATE: Apparently scalability is a big part of it, and, to twitter's credit, they're already looking at alternatives that will "bring back some serendipity and discovery."

Twitter is the latest Internet innovation whose new modalities and high profile are helping technology to change old models of information and communication. Why would they want to tie an anchor to its leg now and act like it's a chatroom?