Media Circus (cont)
NBC hockey analyst Pierre McGuire has worked for Sports Illustrated, and this column is an admirer of his work, but his comments during Game 6 of the Stanley Cup final -- he advocated that the Canucks organization keep Roberto Luongo away from the media -- were absurd given McGuire is a member of the media as an employee of NBC. It also smacks of high irony. As Buffalo News hockey writer Mike Harrington tweeted afterward: "Nice for Pierre McGuire to advocate the Canucks not letting Luongo speak to the media after this one. But if NBC wanted him, they'd get him."
Harrington is correct. When high-profile voices in the media advocate players not speaking with the media, it sends a terrible message to fans. In the end, Luongo ended up speaking with the media, which is what a pro does in both good and bad times.
CNBC sports business reporter Darren Rovell is one of the most active people on Twitter in the sports space, and if you follow me on Twitter, you know that Rovell and I have different philosophies when it comes to some of Twitter's nuances. We decided to have an open email exchange on it, and it runs verbatim here:
Deitsch: I'm glad you agreed to this exchange because I think it could provide some insight into how journalists use Twitter, or at least how they think about their tweets. I think you've done some great stuff crowd-sourcing through Twitter. Your polls are mostly amusing, and I can live with your occasional journey into Chris Berman self-aggrandizement land. (We're probably all guilty of that every now and then.) But let's get into it. I don't believe I've ever seen you RT someone else. I subscribe that the straight RT is the ultimate sign of Twitter respect. I can understand picking your spots, but you've made it a point never to retweet. Why not share someone else's genius with your followers, Rovell?
Rovell: First of all, that's not true. I've given straight RT's to people. Let's get to the point. Respect is giving someone credit. I outsource a tremendous amount of what I put out on my feed and I've never failed to give anyone credit. I know you differentiate on how I give credit, the straight RT, which puts the person's handle out front, vs. a via, which puts it at the end. So why do I put it at the end more often than not? Because I think I can write what they wrote better. That's not meant to be a pat on the back, but ultimately this is a communication tool and the fewer letters I can use and the clearer the point is, combined with how appealing it is of course, the more RT's it will get. If I change the copy, I can't RT someone, it's not their words.
I suppose you think a straight RT is a sign of respect because people are less likely to be left off and not given credit by someone after me if they are put at the end. I don't see it that way. As a conduit, my job is to pass on the information I filter in the best way to pass it on. If it can be clearer, more powerful and use fewer letters, I'd argue that my retweet, no matter where the credit goes, is more powerful and benefits the person I'm crediting. For what it's worth, I haven't had one person of the thousands I've credited in my tweets complain they were stiffed by where in the sentence I gave them credit. One last point, I'd argue a straight RT isn't why my followers follow me or why your followers follow your feed. They want your take. They want your stamp. I try to do that, while giving hat tips and "via"'s along the way.
Deitsch: Well, let's start with where we have agreement: Twitter is definitely about crediting the source. There's an unwritten rule that you should always cite the reference where you learned the information. I agree that part of the reason people follow both of us is because we are both repositories of stories, as well as provide a point of view. And I agree that shorter tweets provide the best mechanism for people to add commentary. But where I disagree with you is on process. A straight RT assures that the source will always be listed first and thus get the rightful credit. By putting the source always at the end, especially with someone who has as many followers as you do, I think the danger is the original source gets lost and that Darren Rovell ultimately gets credit by virtue of having the more powerful Twitter microphone.
I follow a lot of people who are brilliant with word construction so I can't honestly claim that a rewrite from me would always be better for my followers. Sure, my writer ego thinks that my words would be the most effective of all but I'm surprised you would say that it's an absolute given how many people you follow.
Rovell: The credit gets lost in a 140-character tweet? Nope. The credit gets lost when the people after me take off the credit when they RT me. And when their friend RT's them, guess who gets taken off if it's a link and not an original thought? Yep, you guessed it, me. I'd argue that I give credit more that most. Often, you'll see I'll acknowledge two people in a tweet -- the person who sent me the tweet and the person who originally found it or made it. I'd like to think that the reason people like to follow me on Twitter is not only for my take, but because they feel like I am a good aggregator of information.
The Twitter RT is the modern-day answer to getting your letter to the editor published in the paper, and it was common practice to put the writer of that letter at the end. One more point since you have created this "respect" angle. Have you done any studies to find out whether people get more follows if they are given an RT at the beginning versus a via at the end? I'd suspect that the number of followers picked up from getting retweeted in any order of letters has to do with the total distribution and how good of a Tweeter you are when people click on you to consider. I'd guess it has less to do with where in the sentence you are given the credit. That's why I think the idea that how I credit counts less doesn't hold water.
Let me add one an example to give people a better understanding of why I do what I do. This morning, I saw a great item from Busted Coverage. This is how it was written: "RT @bustedcoverage: What happens when you try to buy a Chapter 11 Dodgers jersey this morning from MLB.com." Leaves me 13 letters to comment if I do a straight RT. This is how I wrote it: "MLB doesn't let fans get a "Chapter 11" Dodgers jersey http://bit.ly/mKFyo8. (via @bustedcoverage)." My way leaves the person who passes it on 43 letters. I'm providing the person who passes it on great value by giving them a chance to say more.
Deitsch: I know we're going to continue this debate in the future so I'll bring it to a close since we both agreed on keeping the length reasonable. I will say that I've found the best way to get followers is when respected people send out a note that says I vouch or vet this person as a great follow. I don't think FF have any weight, and I'd argue that few people pick up followers from a via or reference at the end. Let's end on this: If you had to be reduced to one follow, who would it be? For me, it's @Big_Picture, the photo essay feed from The Boston Globe. It never fails to produce great content.
Rovell: Totally agree. Follow Fridays do very little. In fact, I've never done one for that reason. I'm following more than 1,000 people, so I'm going to cop out on this one. If I could only follow one person, I wouldn't be on Twitter. The great joy of this "machine" is hearing all the voices.
SI Now: Make or break year for Danica Patrick
SI Now: Russell Simmons on the benefits of meditation for athletes