http://mathewingram.disqus.com/enMon, 18 Aug 2008 11:01:07 -0000http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/08/16/twitter-as-a-news-tool-a-case-study/#comment-1599027<p>Very cool indeed, Daniel. Thanks for the comment -- and for being a long-time Globe and Mail fan as well :-)</p>mathewiMon, 18 Aug 2008 11:01:07 -0000http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/08/16/twitter-as-a-news-tool-a-case-study/#comment-1554780<p>Examples like this are becoming more and more common. I recently saw a list (I forget where) of all newspapers that have twitter accounts and are using them.</p><p>More importantly, many newsrooms have people *watching* their twitter accounts and are therefore able to respond and react to incoming tweets...</p>Jason PrestonSun, 17 Aug 2008 02:23:41 -0000http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/08/16/twitter-as-a-news-tool-a-case-study/#comment-1533341<p>That's a good point, Sid -- for some things, video is definitely<br>better. We've already started to see more cellphone video of news<br>events being submitted by readers to news sites and places like<br>NowPublic.</p>mathewiSat, 16 Aug 2008 14:31:08 -0000http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/08/16/twitter-as-a-news-tool-a-case-study/#comment-1531369<p>Interesting. I'm curious to see whether video based versions (12 Seconds, Seesmic, etc) will similarly take off. It seems to me that video is a much better medium to spread news, but I don't record very often because of the effort required to get a good recording - versus text which comes out clear every time.</p>Sid SavaraSat, 16 Aug 2008 14:11:04 -0000