3 ms·
I tend to disagree with this. The benefit to CNN is that almost every household had/has access to CNN. It's some channel on basic cable, even if you didn't re
by brk 16y ago
I tend to disagree with this.
The benefit to CNN is that almost every household had/has access to CNN. It's some channel on basic cable, even if you didn't regularly watch it, it was easy to find and was pushing the same news out to everyone.
Twitter on the other hand is not as simple to just start using. You need to sign up, and then find the right people to follow (granted, Twitter does try to make this easier), but for any given event it's hard to find in real time a tweetstream that is going to be better than just watching CNN or other major news outlet. On top of that, Twitter is filled with parody accounts, people making stuff up, and lots of other noise.
- lreeves 16y agoThat's a pretty narrow view of global access to things. Yes, probably most households in the US have access to CNN - but I'd bet a much larger slice of the planet has Internet access and therefore can reach Twitter.
- brk 16y agos/CNN/BBC/ or whatever. I bet more people still have access to broadcast news than they do to Twitter.
- noahlt 16y agoHalf of the world has SMS access and can therefore use Twitter.
- brk 16y agoAnd how would they functionally leverage an SMS-only Twitter feed to get breaking info to something like this? Yes, conceptually a lot of people have access to Twitter. However, from a practicality standpoint my personal opinion is that it's not very effective tool for a scenario like this.
- nradov 16y agoCNN is not included with Comcast Limited Basic cable. That's the cheapest TV option, which you get automatically if you sign up for cable Internet service and nothing else.