Intersections: Twitter, Track, and CNN

Tw*tter-like services are hitting the mainstream, and there is no better example that what Rick Sanchez over at CNN has been doing for the past few weeks by bringing Tw*tter and Facebook into the political conversations he’s been having on his Saturday shows.

I was intrigued by his use of Tw*tter last week, and followed after his last show. With the Biden announcement today, it seemed like a good time to join the conversation, especially since his question intersected with the question we were discussing on NewsGang Live — whether or not the Great Obama Text Message Experiment was a failure or success.

I shot a message to Sanchez saying I believed that the text message announcement plan accomplished exactly what it was intended to accomplish: Buzz, and a large audience available at the send of a single text message. Since we were in the middle of a pretty interesting and intense NewsGang Live discussion, I left it at that, and went on with our show.

That would have been the end of it except that I received a direct message from a Twitter friend telling me that he saw my icon pop up on Rick’s twitter page on-air. That intrigued me for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that it meant that Rick was using Tw*tter in real time, unedited. (At least, in as real time as Tw*tter can be, given that they’ve disabled track and hobbled conversations. Hence, the use of the asterisk in their name.)

I was impressed. Impressed enough to return to his 10pm show.

My suggestions and criticisms for Rick follow:

Rick, props for understanding the value of real-time conversations with people on Tw*tter and other social media. Props for understanding the value of bringing the audience into your conversation in a real way, and props for understanding that by interacting with us, the conversation can evolve.

I believe you understand the value and power of these conversations. However, in your 10pm show, you made the mistake of harnessing the collective idiocy instead of the collective intelligence of those following you, and then turned that into some kind of “Tw*tter shaping the story” thing.

Now that tells me a couple of things. First, it says that you read my earlier tweet to you about Tw*tter breaking the Biden story ahead of you all. It also says that you understand the value of real-time conversations as they relate to news.

These are good things. However, the third factor in an effective use of Tw*tter and like services is the most important: Your own participation in the conversation.

Seriously, the only reason that 3AM lunatic comment got any traction is because you gave it traction. You skipped over really well-stated opinions in favor of the one that was utterly ridiculous.

If you’re going to have a conversation one to many, make it count.

Oh, and you could completely lose your pundit panel, too. Let the folks who really follow these issues be the center of the conversation. Kind of like Talkback Live was back in the days when I worked for CNN Interactive. Talkback Live was the prototype for what you’re doing now, use that audience power to propel you.

To the folks like Mark Mayhew who took me to task for criticizing Sanchez:

You make the point that Sanchez’ followers jumped from 500 to 950 in the span of an hour. How do you think that happened?

It happened because I, and a few others, sent Sanchez’ message out to those folks who follow us, who then sent the same message out to those who follow them, widening and overlapping the circles.

And Mark, the way I found your critical remark? I track my name. So when you sent me a message without following me, I was able to discover it and have a real-time conversation with you about the whole thing because track worked.

Not Summize. Track. via Twitterspy.

Tw*tter, as it is structured right now, precludes those real-time conversations. Important conversations. They control the flow of the conversation, preventing us from engaging with one another in a fashion that allows the conversation to shape the event. Steve Gillmor said it best:

Here is where the difference between search and track will prove pivotal. Search produces analysis after the fact, while track produces interactions that change the events themselves. As social hubs perform for the “cameras” over the next weeks, the efficiencies of those with real time synergies will likely outperform more historical views of the resulting data. Those micro-communities more adept at conversational politics will do better faster, and may in fact tip the election in much the same way Obama’s teams tipped the nomination process via the caucuses.

I call it this: The fierce urgency of NOW.

Tagged as: CNN, interactivity, intersections, microblogging, News, Tw*tter