According to his website, Roger Ebert is “The best-known and most widely read film critic in the world.” He has been writing for the Chicago Sun-Times since 1967. With this kind of reputation, Ebert could simply stick to old-school methods of writing, but instead, he has embraced social media.
Referring specifically to Twitter, Ebert said, “I’ve used it to lure visitors to my website, to make new friends, to discover high-value Tweeters, to learn immediately about breaking news, and–most of all–to have fun and kill time.”
Ebert is not alone in his migration to social media use, Michael Allen of Politico, Dan Balz of The Washington Post, and Wolf Blitzer of CNN are just a few examples of accomplished writers who have made the transition successfully.
For more info on web-savvy journalists, visit: The Washingtonian
Is Change Good?
I believe that social media has changed the world of journalism in ways that no one could have predicted. Instead of having to wait for the latest news, people are able to access it with the click of a mouse.
When I want to know whether a movie is worth going to see, I don’t wait for a newspaper review to come out, I go online and expect one to be there. This applies to anything I want to read. Sports summaries, political news, weather, etc.
What do you think?
- Has social media improved the information we now receive with such ease?
- Do you still use newspapers for things you can get more quickly online?
- Have the wide variety of social media sites created too much “watered down” information?