HOME
          
LATEST STORY
Take two steps back from journalism: What are the editorial products we’re not building?
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
June 22, 2011, 3:30 p.m.

I happen to have that research right here, Mr. Keller: The day sociologist Zeynep Tufekci dropped a bundle of knowledge on the New York Times’s Bill Keller (with help from Twitter and a whole lot of scholarship)

Last month, The New York Times’ outgoing executive editor Bill Keller trolled all of Twitter (including plenty of journalists at his own paper) by posting a single tweet: “#TwitterMakesYouStupid. Discuss.” Today, Reuters’s Anthony De Rosa posted an interview with Keller where (among other things), De Rosa asked him about it.

While repeating some of the stranger accusations he’s previously leveled at his critics (“My view of social media is that it is a set of tools, not a religion”; “digital evangelists and cyber-puritans… treat any hint of skepticism as heresy”), Keller also spelled out what he thinks social media is (and isn’t) useful for:

At the Times, we embrace social media, we use it, we experiment with it. We have a staff dedicated to figuring out new ways to make the best journalistic use of it. We have staff seminars on social media. I encourage reporters to look at Twitter and Facebook and to figure out if there’s a way these services can be helpful to them. Like many tools, Twitter will fit some people’s toolkits more naturally than others, and will be used more skillfully and creatively by some people than others…

The point of my column was that most technological progress comes at a price, and it’s okay to consider the price along with the progress. For some people, Facebook is a way to engage more openly with the world. But there’s an opportunity cost. The time you spend keeping up with your 200 Facebook friends is time you are not getting to know someone really well in person. Twitter is all the wonderful things I said above and then some, but Twitter is mostly reductionist. It does not lend itself to deep, rich conversation, with context and persuasion. It CAN be a stimulus to serious discussion, but that is not the nature of the tool, which is reach rather than depth.

In case you’re wondering, by the way, I do not believe that Twitter literally makes people stupid. If you read the column, you know that I posted a hashtag — #twittermakesyoustupid — followed, please note, by the word “discuss.” The point was to throw out a subject for discussion, and see how the medium dealt with it, which was pretty much the way I expected. (A hashtag is a topic, not an argument. ) I think Twitter can encourage distraction, superficiality, short attention spans, bumper-sticker-level discourse. It can make you SOUND stupid. But, no, I don’t think it makes you stupid.

Now, the long-standing, well-known rule of thumb on the web is “Do Not Feed the Trolls.” In other words, when an Internet user posts something with the deliberate intention of starting a fight, don’t give them what they want. “#TwitterMakesYouStupid. Discuss” has all the telltale marks of a troll. Even Keller says that the argument went “pretty much the way I expected.”

But in this interview, Keller doesn’t seem to be looking to troll the web, but asking for a different kind of engagement. I don’t think he was expecting that different kind of engagement to happen on Twitter. But that’s exactly what happened.

[View the story “I happen to have that research right here, Mr Keller” on Storify]

[If you don’t see a Storify embed above, click here, then come back.]

No one on Twitter is going to let any one person set the conversation agenda. But still, we all hope Mr Keller responds. Whenever he’s ready. We know that just like us, he’s a busy man.

Update: Keller responds. And yes, he and Tufekci are both very busy. (Good thing there’s a popular medium for very short messages written by busy people.)

POSTED     June 22, 2011, 3:30 p.m.
SHARE THIS STORY
   
Show comments  
Show tags
 
Join the 15,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
Take two steps back from journalism: What are the editorial products we’re not building?
“Imagine all the wildly different services you could deliver with a building full of writers and developers.”
Newsonomics: The Financial Times triples its profits and swaps champagne flutes for martini glasses
The FT is a leader in crossing over from print — digital subscribers now make up 70 percent of its paying audience, a number that keeps growing.
A farewell to #content: Optimism, worries, and a belief in great work
A few thoughts on the state of media (and meta-media) from our departing staff writer.
What to read next
750
tweets
Snapchat stories: Here’s how 6 news orgs are thinking about the chat app
From live events to behind-the-scenes tours, The Huffington Post, Fusion, Mashable, NPR, Philly.com, and The Verge tell us how they’re approaching Snapchat.
611New rules governing drone journalism are on the way — and there’s reason to be optimistic
They’re more permissive than some had expected: “Under this regulatory framework, every newsroom will have drones and people certified to fly them. They’ll just be part of the equipment.”
483Internet birthed the radio star: Local newspapers are hoping online radio can be a growth area
Despite slow audience and revenue growth, a handful of newspapers are optimistic about the future of Internet radio.
These stories are our most popular on Twitter over the past 30 days.
See all our most recent pieces ➚
Encyclo is our encyclopedia of the future of news, chronicling the key players in journalism’s evolution.
Here are a few of the entries you’ll find in Encyclo.   Get the full Encyclo ➚
Creative Commons
Twitter
ProPublica
Hacks/Hackers
Byliner
MinnPost
Foursquare
The Seattle Times
The Ann Arbor Chronicle
Circa
Quora
Amazon