The #Spill Effect: Twitter Hashtag Upends Australian Political Journalism

Australia is gearing up for a national election in 2010 and a core group of influential political journalists in the elite Canberra Press Gallery are tweeting their way along the campaign trail -- and bringing an engaged public along for the ride.

Press Gallery journalists are among the most active Australian reporters on Twitter, which entrenched itself Down Under as a mainstream media reporting platform in the context of breaking news early in 2009.

As part of my ongoing research into the impact of Twitter on journalism, I've been investigating the role and experience of Australian political reporters on the platform. I'm currently preparing a case study on Twitter coverage of one of the biggest crises to afflict Australian conservative politics: The Liberal Party leadership collapse that was immortalised by the trending topic #spill in the last days of the 2009 parliament. (I will present a snapshot of this research in a peer-reviewed academic paper at the World Journalism Education Congress in South Africa this July)

I'm in the process of analyzing the thousands of tweets generated when the story unfolded, moment by moment, on Twitter. But more interesting are the experiences of political journalists who used the platform to augment their coverage of the leadership spill as it played out in late November/early December last year.

In the immediate aftermath of the story, I surveyed eight prominent tweeting Press Gallery journalists about their experiences. Their responses, and my ongoing assessment of the Twitter coverage, have strengthened my hypothesis that Twitter is having a transformative impact on journalism. this is taking place against a backdrop of institutional upheaval and audience demands for increased engagement with both journalists and the stories they report. This became clearer to me as I observed and actively participated in the #spill coverage as a content curator and commentator

Key Findings

My key preliminary findings are:
Twitter is becoming a vehicle for participatory democracy in Australia thanks to its ability to create unmediated interaction between political journalists, engaged citizens and politicians.

In the race to tweet, journalists are knocking down the walls that have in the past segregated media outlets within the Press Gallery. This is happening via content-sharing and cross-pollination between fiercely competitive commercial and public broadcast networks, newspapers and wire services.

Collegiality is being fostered between tweeting political journalists.

Conversely, competitiveness has a new, sharper edge.

Tweeting renders political reporting processes more transparent.

Twitter is a new dissemination point for breaking political news.

Twitter has broken through barriers that have historically isolated political journalists from media consumers.

While journalists continue to re-examine professional fundamentals as they negotiate their way through the Twitterverse, they, in general, view the benefits of the platform as outweighing the risks.

The upcoming Federal Election will be Twitterised

I'll elaborate on these findings in my next post for MediaShift. For now, here's a look back at the #spill story, and what it means for Twitter and journalism.

parliament house.jpg

The Press Gallery Joins Twitter

Last June, Canberra Press Gallery journalists successfully campaigned for the right to take mobile devices and laptops onto the floor of the parliament to enable live-tweeting of Question Time, the daily slanging match between the government and opposition parties. This followed the development of a significant following for the journalist-led Twitter discussion around Question Time, aggregated by the hashtag #QT, which effectively engaged an active online citizenry. This change brought about an end to a decades-long ban on communication devices within the parliamentary chambers. And, as a result, politicians began joining the #QT chat from their leather benches.

Highlighting the traction Twitter has gained within Australian politics as a recognised political reporting platform, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd cited the tweets of Sky TV News political editor, David Speers, while taunting the opposition on the floor of the House of Representatives last August.

"Twitter is a welcome addition to the political landscape in my view," Speers told me. "It's encouraging journalists to be faster, wittier and more collegiate."

The Story of #Spill

The flow of Press Gallery journalists onto Twitter accelerated during a leadership crisis that ultimately cost the opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull, his job. Turnbull's attempts to offer bi-partisan support for a controversial emissions trading scheme resulted in an historic schism within the party and an ugly leadership meltdown that ultimately shifted Australian conservative politics further to the right. It was a riveting story.

sam maiden tweet jp.jpg

But what made this political crisis even more spectacular was the way it played out on Twitter. Press Gallery journalists poured onto the platform, and political watchers were glued to journalists' Twitter streams. A politically engaged Twitter electorate was taken directly into the eye of the storm by journalists live-tweeting every twist and turn within the halls of power. They also interacted with their followers. Prominent political players in the crisis, including the deposed leader and one of his key challengers, also used Twitter to engage directly with voters and canvas public opinion.

The Australian's chief online correspondent, Samantha Maiden,) later told me that she felt politicians were generally slower on the Twitter up-take.

"I think it's a bit of a myth that politicians were tweeting in great numbers during the spill, but I certainly know they were keeping their eye on what was emerging on twitter," she said.

Radio 2UE's Latika Bourke said that many politicians were obsessive about tracking the updates form journalists. "Some MPs I know were glued to the coverage, although they'll never admit it publicly," she told me.

Other journalists mentioned the fact that scores of political staffers were closely watching the feeds and phoning reporters, asking them to elaborate on tweets. The staffers also forwarded tweets to the politicians themselves. This confirms the legitimacy Twitter obtained during the #spill as a political reporting platform.

The journalists used Twitter for a wide range of activities. these included:
Tweeting breaking news

Live-tweeting from media conferences

Posting pictures to illustrate the atmospherics

Offering opinions

Monitoring key political players' Twitter feeds

Linking to long-form stories on their outlets' websites and, critically, to those of their competitors

Discussing story updates and journalistic processes with their colleagues, competitors and followers

Interacting with the public

Posing questions to politicians, or passing comments directed at them via the medium

J-Tweeting the Spill

How significant was the role of Twitter in the reporting of 'the #spill'? Within 24 hours of the story breaking, Crikey's Bernard Keane reflected on the impact it had already made.

"Now it's a vast combination of news outlet, rumour mill and commentary chamber, and it's virtually instant. Media in its purest form, with all the flaws and benefits of media similarly magnified," he wrote.

According to Latika Bourke, a commercial radio journalist with the nationally distributed Sydney talk station 2UE, Twitter was at the heart of the coverage.

"I can't tell you how many times I heard journos admit they 'better get into this Twitter thing,' that fortnight ... It was the only service providing minute-by-minute updates of the very fluid situation," Bourke said.

The journalists I surveyed spoke of colleagues overcoming their apprehensions about the time-sapping effect of Twitter as the story unfolded.

ABC Radio chief political correspondent Lyndal Curtis made efficient use of her Twitter account during the week-long crisis. "I used Twitter mainly as a content aggregator -- I didn't have time to monitor Sky [TV], other radios or the newspaper websites because I was constantly on the phone or on the air," she said. "So Twitter was my RSS feed."

Sandra O'Malley, an experienced political correspondent with the main Australian wire service, Australian Associated Press, said she found timely tweeting difficult given the significant deadline pressure involved in reporting for a news wire.

"Twitter was a secondary consideration for me in such a frantic environment," she said "Interesting, however, how competitive it can be. [I] found myself quite put out when I broke a story on the wire but only managed to get it to Twitter late, or not at all, and saw others getting it out there first."

The ABC's Chief Online political writer, Annabel Crabb was one of the first Press Gallery journalists to begin tweeting, and she has a large following at her dedicated Question Time Twitter feed.

"(The #Spill) was an event quite well-suited to Twitter, in that it was fast-moving, anarchic, and constantly changing," Crabb said.

She outlined how the story highlighted the real-time news value of Twitter and its capacity to offer a more detailed picture over time: "A story filed for a newspaper at the end of the day would, of necessity, be obliged to edit out some of the stranger twists and turns that occurred during the day; the deals that fell over, the partnerships that formed and disintegrated all within the space of an orthodox news cycle."

While some said Twitter was the star of the #spill story, Keane, said it was actually part of the bigger (and more permanent) story "of the demolition of the old media model of media outlets and their journalists and editors acting as filters on what information is passed on to consumers."

The collaborative reporting facilitated by Twitter - the "wisdom of crowds effect" - will be explored in part two of this report, along with the impact on political reporting of engagement between tweeting journalists, 'punters' and political pundits. The breakdown of historical divides between journalistic camps, which challenges traditional notions of competitiveness - and raises concerns about further eroding mainstream audiences by driving 'followers' to the websites of competing media outlets - will also be examined, along with the associated emergence of a heightened collegiality between tweeting Australian political journalists.

This is a summary. Visit our site for the full post ».

2009 Was a Terrible Year for Free Speech Online

2009 was an unprecedented year for online repression.

For the first time since the Internet emerged as a tool for public use, there are currently 100 bloggers and cyber-dissidents imprisoned worldwide as a result of posting their opinions online in 2009, according to Reporters Without Borders. This figure is indicative of the severity of the crackdowns being carried out in roughly 10 countries around the world. (In one example, Burma handed out long prison sentences to online dissidents.)

The number of countries pursuing online censorship doubled in the past year -- a disturbing trend that suggests governments seek to increase their control over new media. In total, 151 bloggers and cyber-dissidents were arrested in 2009, and 61 were physically assaulted.

The crackdown on bloggers and ordinary citizens who express themselves online comes at the same time that social networking and interactive websites have become extremely popular, not to mention powerful vehicles for free expression.

China Still Leads in Online Censorship

China was once again the leading Internet censor in 2009. Countries such as Iran, Tunisia, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Uzbekistan also blocked websites and blogs, and engaged in surveillance of online expression. In Turkmenistan, for example, the Internet remains under total state control. Egyptian blogger Kareem Amer is still in jail, while the famous Burmese comedian Zarganar still has 34 years left on his prison sentence. These are but a few examples.

The list of approximately 120 victims of Internet censorship in 2009 also includes leading figures in the defense of online free speech, such as China's Hu Jia and Liu Xiaobo, and Vietnam's Nguyen Trung and Dieu Cay.

People are usually targeted because they speak out on political matters, but the global financial crisis is also on the list of subjects likely to provoke online censorship. In South Korea, a blogger was wrongfully detained for commenting on the country's disastrous economic situation. Roughly six people in Thailand were arrested or harassed just for making a connection between the king's health and a fall in the Bangkok stock exchange. Censorship was slapped on media in Dubai when it came time for them to report on the country's debt repayment problems.

Overall, wars and elections constituted the chief threats to journalists and bloggers in 2009. It is becoming more risky to cover wars because journalists themselves are being targeted for murder and kidnappings. It's also just as dangerous for reporters in some countries to do their job at election time. Journalists have ended up in prison or in a hospital thanks to their election reporting. Violence before and after elections was particularly prevalent in 2009 inside countries with poor democratic credentials.

Iran Election Crackdown

Iran saw the most violence, censorship and arrests due to an election. Its elections this past summer saw more than 100 arrests, and many prison sentences handed down. The country, which is on the Reporters Without Borders list of "Enemies of the Internet," has also deployed a sophisticated system of Internet filtering and monitoring, especially in recent months. The country's main ISPs depend on the Telecommunication Company of Iran, which recently came under control of the Revolutionary Guard, and does not hesitate to flout international treaties or to restrict the free flow of information.

Within hours of the announcement of President Mahmoud Ahmadinedjad's election "victory," journalists were being arrested by the intelligence ministry, Revolutionary Guard, and other security services. Most were taken to Tehran's Evin prison. At least 100 journalists and bloggers have been arrested since June, and 27 are still being held. Today, Iran is one of the world's five biggest imprisoners of journalists.

Since the election, national and international media in Iran have been subject to massive and systematic censorship that is without precedent. For the first time since the 1979 revolution, the security services are vetting the content of newspapers before they're published.

The Iranian regime's offensive against online free expression took a new direction in December after Tehran prosecutor Abbas Jafari Dowlatabadi announced he was going to prosecute two conservative websites for "insulting" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Meanwhile, several Internet service providers cut access to prevent political opponents from disseminating information during opposition demonstrations on December 27. After the demonstrations, the intelligence ministry and Revolutionary Guard began rounding up government opponents and journalists, arresting an estimated 20 people in the latest wave. Those targeted included a dozen or so journalists and cyber-dissidents. Alireza Behshtipour Shirazi, the editor of Kaleme.org (opposition leader Mirhossein Moussavi's official website), was arrested at his Tehran home and taken to an unknown place of detention.

Trouble in Democratic Countries

Democratic countries have also enacted online censorship. Several European nations are working on new steps to control the Internet in what they say is a campaign against child porn and illegal downloads. Australia is also planning to set up a compulsory filtering system that poses a threat to freedom of expression.

Communications minister Stephen Conroy announced in December that, after a year of testing in partnership with Australian Internet service providers, the government will introduce legislation imposing mandatory filtering of websites with pornographic, pedophilic or particularly violent content.

Google Australia's head of policy, Iarla Flynn, raised concerns, saying, "Moving to a mandatory ISP filtering regime with a scope that goes well beyond such material is heavy-handed and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information." In a Fairfax Media poll of 20,000 Australians, 96 percent strongly opposed a mandatory Internet filtering system.

Yet that proposal -- as well as many others around the world -- continues to move ahead. Hopefully, 2010 will be a better year for free speech online.

Clothilde Le Coz has been working for Reporters Without Borders in Paris since 2007. She is now the Washington director for this organization, helping to promote press freedom and free speech around the world. In Paris, she was in charge of the Internet Freedom desk and worked especially on China, Iran, Egypt and Thailand. During the time she spent in Paris, she was also updating the "Handbook for Bloggers and Cyberdissidents," published in 2005. Her role is now to get the message out for readers and politicians to be aware of the constant threat journalists are submitted to in many countries.

This is a summary. Visit our site for the full post ».

Giant Seagull Invades Australian News

hitchener.seagull

Australian newsreader Peter Hitchener had to keep his wits about him last night when a gigantic seagull invaded downtown Melbourne.

As Hitchener was reading a story about police efforts to solve a 27-year-old murder, the gull stole the show, walking across a projection of the city. Hilarity ensued for everyone but Hitchener, who understandably didn’t want to crack up while he read a murder story, and who did a good job of standing up to the bizarre mega-gull.

From news.com.au:

“I was reading away, and it was a serious story, and I suddenly thought, ‘Oh my gosh that seagulls back again’, because we had bit of a problem last night,” Hitchener said.

“About 50 seconds to 6 o’clock this seagull arrived and started pecking at the camera and it had the beadiest huge eyes you’ve ever seen in your life.”


Rules of Engagement for Journalists on Twitter

guardian apology.jpg

Twitter's role in the Iranian election aftermath leaves no doubt about its power as a global, real time, citizen-journalism style news wire service, along with a tool for facilitating dissent, while countering the view of Twitter as simply a zone for egotistical banality. But it also highlighted Twitter's role as a platform and content generator for traditional media outlets, along with some of the key dilemmas being faced by professional journalists in the Twittersphere.

I've been researching the ways in which journalists and traditional media outlets are using Twitter and exploring the ethical dilemmas raised by the clash of the private and the public for journalists in the sphere via interviews with Australian, US and South African journalists. And, while I'm convinced Twitter is now a vital journalistic tool for both reporting events and breaking down barriers between legacy media and its audiences, there are still multiple questions around professional journalists' activities on Twitter that require thoughtful, open debate.

While many journalists recognize Twitter's power as a reporting tool, some news organizations are still reluctant to embrace it while others have issued rules restraining their writers' use of the service. In this third installment of my Mediashift series on the intersection of journalism and Twitter, I'll attempt to determine the rules of engagement for tweeting journalists.

Rules of Engagement

Some media outlets are making tweeting almost compulsory for their journalists but others are much more cautious, or even ban journalists from tweeting on the job. The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times , Bloomberg and AP (among others) have all introduced policies covering social media, partly in response to problems resulting from the unique mix of personal and professional information in the zone. Some of these policies have been criticized for missing the point of social media -- humanized interaction -- and too rigidly regulating journalists' tweeting.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: The previous paragraph had referred to the newspapers' social media policies as "conservative." That descriptor was removed in recognition of the distinctions between their various policies, and in light of a comment from the Times' Jonathan Landman, below.]

But in Australia, journo-tweeting is largely unregulated by media outlets. None of the 25 Australian journalists I interviewed for this study (from Fairfax, News Ltd, ABC, ACP, Sky News and a range of smaller outlets) was aware of such a policy in their workplace. According to some of the interviewees, management ignorance could account for the absence of such policies. When asked why he thought his Australian employer didn't have a policy like the WSJ, one journalist responded, "They just don't get it."

posettiirantweet.jpg

There's growing realization among employers, however, that guidelines may be a helpful adjunct to corporate editorial policies in the brave new world of social media. There's evidence of a policy shift at the powerful Fairfax group, publisher of the Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne's The Age. Asher Moses (who was at the center of the tweeting controversy featured in part two of this series) indicated that, even though there was no official policy, the company had expectations that he could tweet either for professional or personal use but not both.

And the ABC is currently consulting staff as a precursor to publishing new guidelines.

"I think they're still feeling their way on social networking sites. It's a new world and they're trying to figure out exactly how to approach it," prominent ABC presenter Leigh Sales said.

Newsrooms Blocking Twitter at Work

But some employers are either so afraid of the platform or so disdainful about its journalistic potential that they've tried to bar their reporters from even accessing Twitter in the workplace. The Sydney Star Observer's (SSO) Harley Dennett says he's denied access to both his Facebook and Twitter accounts at work via web filters on office computers.

"The publishing editor said staff can make those contacts in their own time," he explained. "But I get around that by using the Tweetie desktop and iPhone applications. I do so openly and unashamedly."

Nevertheless, Dennett's newspaper happily prints copy generated by his extra-curricular tweeting.

"During news conferences I declare if a story originated from Twitter, but my editor has never verbally acknowledged that," he said. "I can't explain the resistance to popular social media and networking websites. Personally, I would welcome some guidance from my employer on Twitter use, if it made sense at least."

The SSO's policy is clearly a short-sighted and narrow-minded approach to managing the issues raised by journalists' interactions with social networking sites but it's not an isolated example.

Jonathan Ancer, from South Africa's Independent Newspapers group, which publishes Johannesburg's The Star along with other influential titles, plans to use Twitter to help trainee journalists to write with brevity and clarity, but he is also barred from Twitter at work.

"When I tried to log onto Twitter a few days ago, I was surprised to find myself blocked with a note saying my attempt to access porn had been recorded," he said. "I think media companies should open up access to Twitter, Facebook and other social networking platforms because this is where people -- readers, eyeballs, etc. -- are going."

However, while individual journalists with the Independent group may have difficulty accessing Twitter, the company's online publication has a moderately active Twitter account. South Africa's media certainly need to make active use of Twitter ahead of the 2010 soccer World Cup when they'll be seeking the world's eyeballs.

parliament%20house.jpg

Meanwhile, in Australia, the Speaker of the Federal Parliament recently approved live tweeting from the floor of the House of Representatives during Question Time via cell or PC. This breaks a decades-long ban on reporting from inside the House. This will likely both enliven political reporting and make it impossible for resistant journalists and media outlets Down Under to continue holding out.

As Twitter becomes entrenched in daily reporting practice, it would seem appropriate for media organizations to update existing editorial guidelines to make them relevant to social media platforms like Twitter. But if they want to bank on the significant benefits that can flow from their participation in the Twittersphere (such as developing new audiences and enhancing traffic to their websites), they will need to ensure their journalists have unfettered access to the site and also be flexible about interactions in the space to encourage reporters to engage in conversations with their followers.

What principles guide J-Twits?

So, for those journalists who tweet according to their own personal code, what principles guide them? For the ABC's Leigh Sales, it's a mix of gut instinct and rules derived from industry experience.

"If I have even the slightest hesitation about posting something, for example, a slightly off-color witticism, I choose not to post it," she said. "I don't post gags about stories on which I may have to report seriously. I don't put any significant personal content on Twitter. I may occasionally say that I've been to a movie or express a like or dislike, but I don't engage in personal chit-chat...I view it as a professional tool."

Dave Earley from Brisbane's Courier Mail has changed his approach since Twitter began hitting the headlines.

"Until Twitter's recent media exposure, my Twitter account had remained relatively unknown in my workplace," he said. "Now that it's on the radar, I'm probably more conscious of what I say."

Early also chooses not to "tweet angry."

"I do try to make sure my tweets are never inflammatory, there's no point setting out to make enemies," he said.

For John Bergin of Sky News, it's a case of common sense and basic training.

"Our journalists receive legal training," he said. "Issues such as defamation, contempt of court, statutory restrictions and so forth should apply as much to the online world as they do in the offline. Obviously, anything that is private and confidential in a newsroom should remain so -- again, common sense and respect for the workplace and its people is paramount."

But Harley Dennett's approach is to tweet independently of his employer. This allows him to publicly criticize his paper and its policies if he desires -- an act which he believes demonstrates transparency and buys him credibility with his followers.

"Increasingly, I'm confident the best model is for the journo to have a direct relationship with their Twitter followers independent of the media outlet that employs him or her," he said. "The spectre of a big media outlet appearing to control what a journo says online would also really hamper that personal quality that Twitter can bring out of a conversation."

Lessons from Iran

green wave.jpg

What information on Twitter is fair game for a journalist to report? There needs to be further discussion between media professionals, their employers, journalism academics and social media experts to help navigate this complex territory. But my preliminary views go like this: Although social media etiquette may not recognize a journalist's right to report any material published openly, the reality is that open Twitter accounts are a matter of permanent public record and fair game for journalists. While attribution is vital and it might be polite (but not necessary) to seek the approval of a Twitterer to quote them, I don't see anything unethical about using tweets in mainstream news coverage. However, the locked Twitter account is a more delicate matter. I'd suggest that a locked account amounts to an "off the record" comment which requires permission from the tweeter before re-publishing.

And does re-tweeting (or RT) -- re-publishing someone else's tweet -- equate to giving their tweets your professional stamp of approval if you tweet openly as a practicing journalist? If you are passing on information to your "followers," do you have an obligation to first establish the information's authenticity or acknowledge it as "unconfirmed" -- an obligation many journalists would feel if they were doing the same for a newspaper or broadcaster?

When I raised concerns this week about the practice of tweeters who openly identify as professional journalists re-tweeting without verification, in the context of the indiscriminate dissemination of tweets claiming to emanate from Iran, I found myself engaged in a lively discussion on Twitter. I asserted that when Patrick LaForge, an editor at the New York Times, re-tweeted (without acknowledgement of verification or absence thereof) a list of Iranian tweeters sourced from expert blogger Dave Winer (who had, in turn, passed on the list without verifying its contents) it amounted to an approval of that list. LaForge disagreed. NYU's Jay Rosen then reminded me not to expect open systems like Twitter to behave in the same manner expected of editorial systems.

laforge.jpg

But while I agree with Rosen, my concern wasn't directed at the unmediated Twittersphere. Rather it was directed at the way journalists approach this flood of information. I'm of the view that professional journalists will be judged more harshly by society if they RT content which later proves to be false -- particularly in the context of a crisis. This goes to their professional credibility and their employer's.

Therefore, while I wouldn't for a minute suggest journalists step back from reporting on social media contributions flowing from zones like Iran, nor from repeating tweets purporting to represent witness accounts -- clearly these are valid contemporary storytelling devices -- I do think they need to critically assess information to the best of their capacity before republishing it and, if there's no way to do so, flag this with "unconfirmed" or some other abbreviated signal that the information has not been substantiated by the journalist.

In many international settings, there are legal as well as ethical imperatives to consider here. If you inadvertently RT a defamatory tweet in Australia, for example, arguing "I was just passing on a link," would not be a defense against a defamation action.

Writing in The Atlantic, Marc Ambinder advises readers to treat the flood of information from Iran like a CIA analyst would -- sifting it and weighing it up. I think that's sage advice for professional journalists operating on Twitter, too. The ABC provided a good example of an appropriate approach to this problem in their online amalgamation of the social media coverage of Iran by simply acknowledging that some of the content was unable to be substantiated. (These issues will be a theme at the #media140 conference to be held in Sydney later this year.)

Top 20 Take Away Tips for Tweeting Journos

1) Think before you tweet -- you can't delete an indiscreet tweet! (Well, you can, but it will survive in Twitter search for three months and it's likely live on as cached copy somewhere.)
2) Think carefully about what you're re-tweeting and acknowledge if it's unsubstantiated.

3) Be an active twit: tweet daily if you want your followers to stick.

4) Determine your Twitter identity.

5) Be human; be honest; be open; be active.

6) Don't lock your account if you want to use Twitter for reporting purposes -- this fosters distrust.

7) Twitter is a community, not just a one-way conversation or broadcast channel -- actively engage.

8) Check if your employer has a social media policy.

9) Be cautious when tweeting about your employer/workplace/colleagues.

10) Be a judicious follower -- don't be stingy but avoid following everyone as your list grows to avoid tweet bombardment.

11) If you quote a tweet, attribute it.

12) Expect your competitors to steal your leads if you tweet about them.

13) Don't tweet while angry or drunk.

14) Avoid racist, sexist, bigoted and otherwise offensive tweets and never abuse a follower.

15) Scrutinize crowdsourced stories closely.

16) Find people to follow. Foster followers by pilfering the lists of other twits.

17) Twitter is a 'time vampire' (via @anne_brand) -- you don't need to keep track of all tweets, so dip in and out through the day.

18) Prevent information overload by using an application such as Tweetdeck.

19) Add applications to your Internet-enabled mobile device to allow live-tweeting on the road.

20) Add value to your tweets with links, Twitpic and other applications for audio and video.

A useful resource: You can find a list of the top 100 Australian media professionals on Twitter compiled by @earleyedition here.

UPDATE: Jonathan Landman, deputy managing editor of the New York Times, responds in comments to the contention that the Times had a "conservative" social media policy:

Actually, The New York Times does not have a conservative code of conduct for social media. It does not have any code of conduct for social media.

What it does have is a comprehensive set of ethical and practical standards compiled in a handbook, last issued in 2004 and updated and amended from time to time afterward. It is a guide for Times journalists in print, online, over the air and in life. One of the updates is entitled 'Using Facebook in Reporting.' It says, among other things, that social networking sites 'can be remarkably useful reporting tools.' It also sets forth some reasons for caution -- any tool, misused, can be dangerous.

You can read both the ethics guidelines and the Facebook update here and judge for yourself whether they are 'conservative' and/or clueless about social media. Personally, I think that's a bum rap...

The Times also has a social media editor, a new position. Her job is to identify the most promising journalistic uses of these tools and then to teach and encourage Times journalists to deploy them. It is quite possible that her work will include publishing her recommendations for all to see and use, maybe even in the form of a code. It will not miss the point of social media.

Julie Posetti is an award winning journalist and journalism academic who lectures in radio and television reporting at the University of Canberra, Australia. She's been a national political correspondent, a regional news editor, a TV documentary reporter and presenter on radio and television with the Australian national broadcaster, the ABC. Her academic research centers on talk radio, public broadcasting, political reporting and broadcast coverage of Muslims post-9/11. She blogs at J-Scribe and you can follow her on Twitter.

Green Wave protest photo by Hamed Saber via Flickr

This is a summary. Visit our site for the full post ».