Twitter While Watching TV

The Daily Mirror reported last month that Samsung has introduced a Twitter widget to its Internet@TV service. This will allow users of certain Samsung LCD and LED televisions to interact with a Twitter feed alongside any regular programming.

A Samsung TV showing a Flickr widget that is similar in appearance to the one used with Twitter.The Internet@TV service was launched by Samsung earlier this year. It features on-screen widgets that a television viewer can use to access different Internet applications such as Flickr, Youtube, and Facebook. A press release described it as follows:

TV Widgets make it easy to interact with Internet content and services to complement and enhance the traditional TV viewing experience...The service, which adapts the Yahoo! Widget Engine, enables users to engage in a variety of experiences that traditionally could only be enjoyed on a PC. Not only will users be able to track their stock portfolio and stay on top of headline news, but they may also browse through videos, share photos and interact with friends.

A spokesman for Samsung added: "It's frankly way beyond just passively watching broadcasts and is no doubt the future of TV."

The Twitter widget is positioned on one side of the screen and can either overlay or appear next to the television program being viewed. It can be set up to display a specified feed that updates in real time and allows a user to issue tweets via an on-screen keyboard powered by the remote control. This setup enables television viewers to communicate and comment on what they are watching without using a traditional personal computer or phone.

Interactive television, or a form of it, made its mainstream debut in 1996 with WebTV, which was later acquired by Microsoft and renamed MSN TV. This service, however, did not allow the user to watch a television program at the same time as accessing the Internet. Other services that merge the Internet and television do so in a more proprietary way. Apple TV, for example, allows integration between iTunes and a small, digital media receiver that is connected to a television. But it, too, has an insurmountable wall between live programming and accessing online content.

Now, with the Twitter widget on these Samsung televisions, there's a more seamless way to enjoy television while communicating with others. The assumption, of course, is that those using this service will issue tweets with others who are watching the same program. One can envision discussing plot lines as they happen in nighttime dramas or discussing how well the home team is doing in the game. It can approximate the feel of having your friends on the sofa beside you even if they are thousands of miles away.

But, as with any technological advance, there are initial limitations that presumably will be addressed at a later date. The lack of an external keyboard makes issuing tweets difficult -- the on-screen equivalent is simply too unwieldy to use with alacrity. Also, the stream of messages animating while watching a program can be a distraction. There's an undeniable limit to how much one can multitask and still keep proper attention to where it is focused. This is why the Twitter widget will probably work best during commercials or breaks in the action during a sporting event.

Overall, Samsung has made progress in the merging of social media and traditional television. With improvements such as the addition of an external keyboard, a glimpse of how many of us will be spending our time in the living room of the future seems to be at hand. And while Samsung would like us to believe that Twitter will enhance our national pastime of watching television, one can also envision an alternate, and perhaps more likely, reality -- that of millions of couch potatoes sharing banal comments with those watching the same reality program. Progress indeed.

Twitter and Nightline

The ABC News television program, Nightline, recently instituted a weekly, online show that integrates Twitter into its reporting. According to their Web site, its purpose is to provide "a forum for viewers to simultaneously discuss and debate the news of the day through the prism of Twitter." The new series, dubbed "NightTline", with the capital "T" represented in the Twitter typeface, premiered on May 13th and can also be seen on ABC News Now, the network's 24-hour digital channel.

Nightline correspondent John Donvan using the interactive touchscreen.

The format for the first three episodes was the same: a topic is introduced with any necessary exposition followed by expert analysis from guests with opposing viewpoints. This is all interspersed with questions and comments from those following along on Twitter.

The first episode suffered a minor technical glitch at the start when Terry Moran, the anchorperson, had issues with the the interactive video display. This device, described by ABC News as the "unique visualization of Twitter using Pixel touchscreen technology," is central to the program. The whole episode is conducted via the touchscreen including the guest interviews and the Twitter stream that is prominently displayed.

Overall, the program succeeds in its stated goals. By asking viewers to "join our discussion in real time," Mr. Moran was able to integrate their tweets into the conversation throughout. The inherent lack of visual interest of an anchorperson reading viewer comments is mitigated somewhat by the interactive technology -- when a tweet is highlighted on the screen, it animates as it zooms forward into focus.

The bigger issue as to whether the program succeeds as an example of online journalism depends on one's viewpoint. Quite simply, does input from those on Twitter actually add anything substantive to the dialogue? Or is it a gimmick designed to invite user interaction when it is not needed? The answer may depend on the skills of the anchorperson handling the episode. If he or she asks insightful questions and conducts the interviews with penetrating analysis, then commentary from those on Twitter may, at best, be a distraction contributing little to the discourse.

Another issue has to do with the tweets shown on the touchscreen -- they are not presented as an active stream as one might expect. For those that are displayed, however, there is no mention of any selection process or the criteria used. Should it then be assumed that the displayed tweets are a representative subset of the opinions of those following along? Most likely, profanity is censored, but what about commentary that may be considered politically incorrect? Any limits on which tweets are highlighted can inherently limit the intellectual breadth of the debate.

In any event, the highlight from the first episode was not any enlightenment gained from the moderated discussion, but rather a comment from a Twitter contributor. It wasn't what he wrote that was notable; it was his photo that stole the show. Displayed prominently, it showed him chugging what looks like a beer from a paper bag. In the world of Twitter and Nightline, his insight is worth as much as anyone else's.

The Truth According to Twitter

Photo Credit: Alan LightThree incidents last week showed the extraordinary ability of Twitter to spread unfounded rumors. The first, and most publicized, dealt with the premature announcement of the death of actor Patrick Swayze. The BBC reported that a Florida radio station, KISS FM, posted a tweet saying that Mr. Swayze, currently suffering from pancreatic cancer, had died. This was not the case. His publicist released a statement saying that "contrary to reckless reports," Mr. Swayze is alive and responding well to treatment.

Meanwhile, at roughly the same time, The Register noted that a person using the name Nick Brown, the Labour chief whip in the United Kingdom, had issued the following tweet:

the new speaker will have only a few weeks to get settled in before the election is called

This was considered breaking news in British politics as it implied that Gordon Brown, the prime minister, was preparing to call a general election in the fall. Previously, he had denied any intention of doing so. After being widely reported in the media, it was found that the posting was a fake sent from an account that had been deleted soon after.

Finally, an article in the Boston Herald told of Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger, denying rumors that he has skin cancer. Postings under his name on numerous social networking sites, including Twitter, claimed otherwise. Mr. Roethlisberger told the media that he is not active in the online community. His agent said that they are working to stop the impostors and correct the misinformation that they had spread.

Twitter's immediacy and intimacy make it ideal for communicating information quickly and to a great number of people. Although a national television broadcast may be best at addressing a large, captive audience at any single moment, various applications allow users to view their Twitter feeds from just about anywhere, whether from a PC or a cell phone. This unique outreach gives Twitter enormous power, or the potential thereof, among those who use it. This aspect was even cited by one of its competitors. The Guardian wrote that during a conference last week, Google's co-founder, Larry Page, admitted "that the company has been losing out to Twitter in the race to meet web user's demand for real-time information."

But as with all power, there are corrupting influences and abuses. In the case of the tweet purportedly issued by the Labour Party official in the U.K., the lightening speed of its dissemination allowed little reflection of the facts at hand. For a while, much of the political community took this information as fact, and it was reported in the media as such. Few questioned the validity of the source or bothered to investigate further.

We are accustomed to questioning the truthfulness of the news conveyed by traditional media. In fact, children are routinely taught at a young age that you cannot believe everything you read or hear. But with each advance in communication technology, it's seems to be a lesson that needs to be learned anew. With Twitter, the ease in which one can pose as an imposter or spread misinformation requires greater vigilance on the part of all involved.

Mr. Roethlisberger was an even more direct victim of identity theft, a topic previously covered here. For anyone viewing the lies posted by the impostor, there was no apparent way to confirm whether or not the author was Mr. Roethlisberger. Unfortunately, even if most assumed it was a misdirection, it only took a few individuals to spread the gossip thus forcing Mr. Roethlisberger to respond.

The incident involving Mr. Swayze is the most insidious and challenging to the notion that Twitter can be a productive part of journalism as many hope it can become. One should not confuse Twitter's ability to convey information efficiently with the veracity of said information. Even though the radio station removed the mistaken tweet shortly thereafter, the incident made its way from the online world to the traditional news outlets.

Unfortunately, at that point, it assumes the imprimatur of a more respected source. A theoretical example: a report on CNN of breaking news may claim properly that their source is Twitter. But subsequent reports on other news outlets may say that their source is CNN. The original source, one which deserves skepticism, is lost in the shuffle. And so it goes.

Mark Twain said it best: "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." Twitter exemplified.