I’m very sympathetic to the tone of Rory’s posting, but there’s this one question:

But, like Sky News, we are still pondering a couple of key questions. Is it right, for instance, to break news on Twitter before it reaches any broadcast outlets? In a long-running court case, a series of tweets from the reporter who is following proceedings can be an invaluable way of keeping both the newsdesk and the world informed.

Yep, I can see that, however regards (say) the Assange hearings I was watching @fieldproducer as one voice amongst many, perhaps 1/3rd of them accredited journalists.

He continues:

But when it comes to the verdict, surely the reporter should rush to the live microphone or camera first – even if that means being beaten by a rival tweeter? (Breaking news – I’ve just had guidance from my bosses that yes, breaking news should be passed to the BBC first rather than Twitter.)

Poor guy.

Well, yes, I can see their point, they want to vet the story for risks before reporting; one of the key events demonstrating the modern failure of that perspective is/was “Trafigura”.

Also there were the Norwegian bombing/shootings which we on Twitter were all following hours before the BBC picked up the story, let alone the awkwardness evident on Radio 4 when a Norwegian interviewee broke the story of the island shootings before news coverage had been arranged or confirmed – the Beeb’s coverage up to that point was only of the car-bomb, whereas we on Twitter were receiving snippets from local Norwegian journalists and passing them samizdat.

Oh, and when a plane lands in the Potomac, Twitter is first with pictures, too.

Orlowski made a decent stab at illustrating some of the problems, yesterday; the remainder of issues are summed up in Guido’s byline: You are either in front of Guido, or behind him.

In one sense the number in front diminishes, daily.