As we’ve seen in our fast-paced news world, misconceptions can spread quickly. Journalists’ original, somewhat harsh, reaction to Twitter’s new ‘related headlines’ were not all fully understanding the feature. Our previous post included some journalists’ remarks, which were updated once they learned what the feature really showed, which is related headlines in permalinks only.
Controversy was stirred in the beginning. Some noteworthy responses included Caleb Garling's tweet saying that the this new feature is “so media company tone deaf that I almost believe Twitter wants to end embedded tweets.”
And others, like Jay Rosen, originally agreed with this sentiment. Tweeting out, “Raise your hand if this will make it less likely that you will embed tweets in your posts and articles.” After Rosen was notified of the true placement of the feature, he changed his mind, noting, “The related stuff won’t show up on YOUR site if you embed, only on Twitter. Sorry: over-reacted.”
Megan McCarthy originally predicted that, “Publications will quickly stop embedding tweets and start using screenshots/links instead.” After learning about the actual placement of the related headlines, she softened her stance, asking, “In the post, it’s unclear that these links won’t show up on the sites that embed them. Can you assure that they never will?”
Ron Nurwisah had positive feedback, noting, “Boon for news outlets, adds context.” And Nick Dean seemed skeptical but positive about the new feature, tweeting, “could be good for news orgs- though a bit buried right now.”
Here’s how the related headlines section will appear on Twitter:
It seemed like the new feature may not be what we originally thought, just needed clarification. What do you think about the new feature on Twitter? Are you outraged or intrigued? Maybe neither?
(Image: Twitter dictionary via Shutterstock)