Whistling, or Tweeting, in the dark

Once again, a major news event has prompted the mainstream media to report on grassroots digital journalism as if it's brand new. This time around, the object of their affection is Twitter, which CNN breathlessly touted all weekend in its coverage of the protests in Iran. ("Look at all these Tweets coming in every minute!")

Logic might seem to dictate that this is a good thing for Twitter, an indication that it has acquired some sort of validation among the masses. But in the perversely fickle world of popular technology, this recognition can be tantamount to a death knell as it signals the fading fancy of just the latest digital toy. Not surprisingly, just as the cable networks were in full gush, Steve Rubel pointed to an iMedia post headlined, "Why Twitter will soon become obsolete."

The reasons are many and valid, involving enough "paradigm shifts" and "signal-to-noise ratios" to choke a horse. But the two most penetrable points involve Twitter's technology and, most important for purposes of this blog, its use as a news medium.

--Technology. Going back to the discovery of fire and the wheel, there are endless examples of technological displacement and replacement. And nothing lights a fire more than money. To wit: Twitter is in everyone's crosshairs, ranging from Google's Wave and Microsoft's Vine to the next garage startup. As callous as it may seem to loyalists, Twitter is just another form of digital distribution.

--Media. This point is trickier because, unlike the more controlled environment of corporate competition, it's more dependent on the unpredictable forces of trend, popularity, and perceived practicality. Back in 2005, after the London terrorist bombings and then Hurricane Katrina, Wikipedia's Wikinews was touted much the way Twitter is today, as real-time witness accounts and other text information. But does anyone even mention Wikinews anymore today?

And then there's the small matter of veracity. As Jeff Segal notes on Breakingviews, "Most Iranians posting Tweets are likely to be young, educated, and reasonably wealthy, and so it has a built-in bias. And there are already reports--on Twitter, of course--that the Iranian government was creating fake Twitter accounts to spread propaganda."

So be wary of self-promoting media mavens who proselytize the uninitiated over Twitter or any other so-called social media tool as the Mother of All Inventions, for they may well be worshipping a false idol. Or, more likely, they're just trying to sound like they know what they're talking about.

As we have seen in the brutal layoffs at MySpace--which said today that it will cut another 300 international positions beyond the 30 percent reduction of its U.S. workforce announced last week--anyone and anything can be anointed and stripped of its mantle seemingly in the span of a single click. (See "The lungfish of social networks")

And given Twitter's utilitarian function, its loyalty is arguably even shakier than that of social networks such as Facebook or multimedia communities like YouTube and Flickr. For these reasons, as heretical as it will undoubtedly seem to the Tweeter Nation, it can hardly be assumed that Twitter will be the catalyst of the next digital revolution.

Don't get me wrong; I fully acknowledge Twitter's usefulness, as companies such as JetBlue found a year ago when it began blasting information over the platform ranging from fare specials to schedule changes. But again, this is just building a better pipeline for distribution.

What I do dislike, however, is the idea that this or any other technology is a be-all-end-all solution that excludes alternative paths to exposure. Buddhists talk about the impermanence of all things; that's a particularly apt truism to bear in mind when considering technology.

Just ask Netscape.