Over
the past few weeks, we have seen a slew of allegations related to paid
tweeters. Ironically, they come from those who make a living out of “delivering
news”. And they accuse tweeters for whom twitter is at best a hobby. The accusers are usually journo-tycoons
and worth more than the average tweeter, by an exponential margin. So, coming from journo-tycoons who make their crores out of delivering news to some random tweeters who dont agree with their views, this is a bit too much.
In general if you see, media sites corner
a bulk of the page views on the net (well, they should, they have all the news)
apart from the usual junk on the net. And on twitter, some of their leading lights have a huge number of
followers - much more than the average hobbyist tweeter.
A
few years ago, one of the biggest media houses in India came up with an
idea known as Private Treaty – where they took a stake in a company and
paid for that by news and advertisements. Now that was a unique idea in
itself – we wont go into the good and bad aspects of it – we leave it
for you, intelligent reader to decide. But the fact that they saw a market there and were able to tap into it is a testament to the fact that people are willing to pay for positive coverage.
So,
if you are a politician or a business house or somebody who wants a
nice mention in the media – who would you go to? Tweeters or the big
swinging dick media guys? Obviously, the latter. And with good reason.
Thats where you get more bang for your buck. And do remember Page 3 – a "feature" in most newspapers and surely there
is an equivalent on TV as well.
If
you go to an individual tweeter – how many followers will he or she
have? About a handful? A few hundreds, a few
thousands? And why are these guys tweeting? Because they make money
tweeting? Or because they tweet what they are passionate about?
Collectively, they are a force, but individually not worth too much.
Therefore,
the so
called “paymaster” of tweeter is fighting a losing battle by "paying"
tweeters and how much will they pay? Influential tweeters wont accept
money and non influential tweeters wont be paid. Yes, please, do a sting
operation by asking some of
them if they will tweet for money. If they don’t expose you on twitter
the very same minute, consider yourself lucky. (Last heard a prominent
media baron did ask a prominent senior Bollywood star to tweet about
their programs and
the star blogged their exchange- so much for paid tweeter
abuses from journo tycoons.)
So, why are journo
tycoons pissed off with tweeters? Because they
ask questions and our mike pointing, finger wagging journo tycoons aint
used to that! They are not used to being questioned at all. Over the last 40 odd years, media has been feeding us, the viewers their view. Tweeters stand in their way by putting their pov which may be diametrically opposite to what the media wants to tell you and twitter being an open platform, the celebrity is equal to the man on the street with a twitter connection. Tweeters point out the hypocrisy of our media that
changes
colours faster than a disco chameleon. Tweeters have also made media
apologise
(while media threatens to sue in return) for faking tweets and being
abusive or ignorant among other things. They also, at times, point to
the hand in glove association that is the liberal leftist
politician-media complex in India which make
our media barons very insecure on the internet - which threatens to end
their dominance of news and influence. Hence this latest attempt to
malign tweeters. But then, like other social media and the internet in general, twitter is something that cannot be controlled - unless there is a censor board kind of thing (which our dear uncorrupt angelic government is planning, btw).
The
next time you hear about paid tweeters and paid media do ask them who
takes sponsorships and ads and who does not and there might lie your
answer on who is "paid" and who is not.
(A truncated version of this was X-posted on CRI)
No comments:
Post a Comment