The Atlantic has its own Facebook page and Twitter feed, which I follow. Both Facebook and Twitter are great tools to post headlines and direct interested readers to the full story on the website. However, when it comes to interactivity, the Atlantic makes much better use of Twitter than Facebook. On Facebook, as well as on the Atlantic's official website, readers can post comments and reactions to stories. There's interactivity in the sense that readers can discuss ideas with each other, but there is no real dialogue between the Atlantic and its readers. I think this is probably the case for most nonfiction sites' Facebook accounts. On Twitter, however, the Atlantic can, on rare occasions, retweet relevant news and articles that readers might be interested in, though most of these are drawn from other areas of their own website.
New York Times food and health writer Mark Bittman has both a personal Facebook page and a Twitter account. Just like the Atlanitc, Bittman primarily uses these sites as vehicles for promoting his column and for keeping readers up-to-date on his articles. He also uses it to announce television appearances and talks. While his Facebook page feels personalized and directed to his readers, there is still no real back and forth dialogue between him and readers. Readers post questions to which he never responds. It almost makes me feel like the interactivity of these social media are mere guises, when, in reality, it would be almost impossible for a writer like Bittman to respond to all the comments and questions he receives. However, I do like that on his Twitter he shares articles from other sources. His tweets aren't just promotional tools but ways for him to share other information with readers.
No comments:
Post a Comment