Newspapers need to converse

 

Can we talk?

I was surprised to learn recently that only a very few American newspapers – for all their blather about the future of online news – have managed to gather more Twitter followers than I have, or more than hundreds of Twitterer users who have greater followings than I have.

Thanks to the work of graphicdesignr.net/blog, we can see that after the New York Times, The Onion (no less!), The Wall Street Journal and the two-feed total of the Chicago Tribune, no other newspaper company has the edge on me. Crazy, huh?

I found this almost unbelievable, wondered how this could happen and shared my curiosity with the Twittershpere.

I got a lot of response, sometimes suspecting economic pressures – to do more with less – or generally dismissive attitudes about a platform with a silly name, but more came back to an overall misunderstanding, specifically in the case of the many news publishers who just use Twitter as if it were no more than another RSS feed.

In other words, the medium is conversation now. Join in or fade away. This is the least you need to do.

Here are some of the responses I got.

• AdolfoRosado: newspapers are on the endangered species list and on the way to dodoland.
• heysupergirl: Because we’ve learned to get our news from other sources? Because we’re interested in all types of news, not just local?
• statesman: I think not understanding Twitter is the problem. Check this out: http://is.gd/fTQa 
• dogstories: Management-staff do not understand or appreciate social media; lots do not follow back; poor assessors of tweeple interests…
• petersonwally: Mirrors decline in readership. Hilarious that the Onion is #2.
• chuq: @JimMacMillan if there’s nothing in the twitter feed that isn’t also in an RSS feed, why bother?
• SDSU_NewsTeam: because Twitter is about engagement. If you don’t engage pple, you’re not adding value. many journs on here don’t engage
• tbuser: Newspaper twitterers not popular because most only do “Headline: URL”, twitter is not an RSS reader. (or a chatroom lol)
• christopherwink: Because journs weren’t supposed to. They wrote truth – readers were mostly irrelevant. But now a conversation is the future.
• christopherwink: It’s extra work for the same, or sometimes, less money. They don’t necessarily see it has help for sources, but burdensome.
• cophotog: they just don’t get it. 400 years of building walls and 1 way communication.
• dogstories: Yes, generational; top down vs bottom up info feeds; words vs visual communication media; interactive nature of social media.
• cophotog: your correct but it takes a complete change in thinking. Senior Mgt needs to bring us young people in to lead the charge.
• davidmaclean: Because usually, they’re just little more than annoying RSS feeds, instead of something more than that. Wasted opportunity.
• jiconoclast: MSM news orgs concentrate on how to push existing content onto news platforms, rather than creating unique content.
• Philipbuxton: because twitter IS our newspapers? Or at least, the news stand.
• statesman: We’re used to pushing out, not interacting. Plus, it’s easy to dismiss this as “silly.” Some are coming around. ;)
• SDSU_NewsTeam: Not sure. Journs seem to me to be people who watch and listen more than talk and discuss. Maybe it’s that simple?
• benasmith: Because so many dont understand Twitter and use it as nothing more than an RSS feed of headlines and links. No engagement
• colinmlenton: most newspapers look at Twitter as just another RSS feed. its similar , but so much more
• tbuser: I think individuals within a company using twitter are more successful then the company itself trying to be “on” twitter.
• DalydeGagne: Print journalists may nt engage w SNM b/c fewer staff doing more – filing for print and web. #journ