I have only scanned Mr. Keller’s piece so far, but together with the “we don’t like linking” sentiments expressed by NYT staffers in the other Romenesko item, I sense a disturbing trend of miscomprehension.

Keeping to Twitter for now: Mr. Keller seems to believe that a major use of Twitter is discussion and debate. And actually, unfortunately, it seems to be just that for some people, though I don’t know why — debates and discussions that take place on Twitter are  impossible to follow and are, by definition, shallow. It’s near-useless for that function.

But Twitter is what you make it. What it is for me is the best real-time headline service yet devised. I have covered two main beats over the past three years — the food economy and the tech business. I have two Twitter accounts: @thefoodeconomy:twitter  and  @thetecheconomy:twitter . There, I follow everybody I can find who is connected with each beat (and is worth following) — executives, experts, PR people, journalists, etc. Mostly journalists, actually.

Pretty much every item of news that occurs on my beats is on Twitter, and it’s usually on there first (i.e. before being linked from blogs or whatever). I don’t learn anything from any given tweet other than the fact that there is a story that I want to see, and a link to it. Twitter is a jumping-off point — for me, an indispensable one. As Mr. Keller notes, the depth is found elsewhere. Twitter is just a guide to it. But it’s an incredibly useful one. Better than Google News. Better than any given blog or “aggregator.” Better in some ways than RSS feeds (though I’m not about to give those up.)

I challenge Mr. Keller to choose a particular topic area and create a Twitter account (without revealing his identity, as that will make his life easier) devoted to just that topic. Say, foreign policy/international news. Find all the worthy journalists, officials, diplomats, authors, professors, etc., who have Twitter accounts and follow them for a month or two, then get back to us. I think you’ll find that not only are you kept abreast of the news better than before, but that you’re seeing things you otherwise wouldn’t. This is another benefit of Twitter — it restores the serendipity that new media have in some ways tended to diminish.

Bill, write to me @thefoodeconomy — I have a good hidden list of foreign-policy/world news people on Twitter, and can get you started with that if you like. Use Twitter the way most good journalists use it, and I think you’ll change your opinion.

@facebook-504633504:disqus A thoughtful response, but I can’t help wondering if you’ve basically affirmed the main thrust of his argument in saying that “debates and discussions that take place on Twitter are  impossible to follow and are, by definition, shallow. It’s near-useless for that function.”

Based on Mr. Keller’s article, he doesn’t seem to be attacking the potential of Twitter to be a useful tool. In fact, he outright states the opposite: “So let me be clear that Twitter is a brilliant device — a megaphone for promotion, a seine for information, a helpful organizing tool for everything from dog-lover meet-ups to revolutions. It restores serendipity to the flow of information.”

What he is attacking, as far as I can tell, is the tendency of Twitter to attract and subsequently dumb down discussion. The fact that we constantly refer to Twitter as a ‘conversation’ doesn’t help. Yes, Twitter is a great “jumping-off point” for information elsewhere, but (as you say) a terrible venue for real discussion. 

So the question that Mr. Keller poses might be better phrased as, “If, as is likely, people continue to use Twitter as a channel for discussion and discourse, rather than only treating it as a jumping-off point for content posted elsewhere, will this trend in behavior and Twitter usage result in shallow Twitter discourse becoming more acceptable, while deeper discourse elsewhere becomes less popular, because attention stays on Twitter and doesn’t leave?”

Of course, such a question cannot be easily tweeted, so ironically, Mr. Keller’s infamous tweet (stripped of context by the ‘near-uselesness’ of Twitter for the function of serious discussion) and the subsequent responses make for a great example of how Twitter can dumb down, then sensationalize and popularize a discussion.

Thoughts?

Yeah, as I said, I had only scanned his piece when I wrote that. I had missed his quick, offhand mention of Twitter’s usefulness in the terms I described. This tells me that he, like many others, seems to think that most people in his cohort (and mine) use it that way, and they just don’t. When they do, they are easily ignored.

If he thought Twitter was truly useful in any way, I doubt he would have expended hundred of words arguing the opposite.