The Iran election of 2009 is the first live event I have ever followed on Twitter. To me, Twitter is like a
live world status report on practically everything and, in this case, a defining political event in the middle east as it unfolds. What makes it so unique is that you get so many diverse and unfiltered perspectives; it's like what theaters once coined a 360 "sensurround" experience.
Bloggers like Josh are doing a terrific job too. IMO, if you really want to stay informed about something, you have to seek out or create your own news experience. Fortunately you have a lot of innovative sources to choose from.
We have 24 hour news networks but they just aren't coming through for me on this election. Suffice it to say, they aren't coming through for me on much of anything anymore. I recognize the difficulty of media access in a place like Iran but Christiane Amanpour has managed to offer an insightful perspective for CNN, although with events unfolding every minute, somehow cable news coverage lags behind.
And cable news is corporate-sponsored. That really presents too much of a conflict of interest, and the notion that you can trust any corporate-sponsored newscast implicitly, never mind a state-sponsored newscast, is seriously naive. (They overlap so much now maybe there isn't even a difference between the two.)
Keep in mind that with the internet, and especially Twitter, it can act as an instant rumor mill. It can be used to distribute information and disinformation, just like all media. So you have to enlist your brain a little and look for a balance of evidence.
That's the thing now. We all have to do a little more work to find out what's really happening.
I'm not saying Twitter is the answer. I'm just saying there does seem to be a purpose for it that is evolving beyond discovering what kind of lettuce David Gregory is eating at the National Press Club.
