I am not on Twitter mostly because I would be embarrassed by having only two or three "followers", one of them a dog. Tweeting "Time for kibble, a walk and a dump" seems redundant when the dog arouses instantly from the deepest slumber when I come within twenty feet of the kibble bucket. Also, his tweets would be boring. "Slept. Licked myself. Barked at nothing in particular."
Twitter is of sociological value, however. It reveals what is of prime importance to the American Public.
On August 28, Twitter traffic set an all-time record of 9,000 tweets per second when Beyonce revealed her pregnancy on the MTV Music Awards. The previous record was a mere 5,000 tweets per second last May with the death of Osama bin Laden. Results have not been announced for last week's shocking revelation that Madonna can't stand hydrangeas, but that probably will take over #2 on Twitter's all-time Hit List. After all, the "Today Show" devoted a segment to The Material Girl's denunciation of the blue flower.
They say that traditional journalism is dying with the advent of social media like Twitter. Why doesn't The New York Times utilize social media to decide what makes its daily headlines? Clearly, almost twice as many folks care about a pop star's pregnancy than the death of the man responsible for 9/11. More people would buy a newspaper headlined "Beyonce Preggers" than "Osama Dead. Troops Can Come Home". Twitter never lies. Circulation would spike.
Going back in history, "Don't Send Hydrangeas to Madonna" would trump "Japanese Bomb Pearl Harbor". The NY Times with its stodgy old "All the news that's fit to print" could probably find some space for the Day of Infamy, but not a headline had the Twitter Criterion been available in 1941.
One wonders if those Islamofascists might consider scheduling their next attack on America for the day that Beyonce gives birth. "It won't even be a suicide mission, Abdullah. You can get away before everyone is finished tweeting about the baby."
No comments:
Post a Comment