Frankly, I find the “debate” bout whether Twitter can be considered news or not a little funny. If someone tells you something you don’t know, is that news? Is it only news if it turns out to be accurate? Or have we defined news as something that comes from “recognized” ala “mainstream” news sources. Do you have to be a professional journalist before your information can be considered news?
Brendan Hodgson, a PR pro out of Calgary I believe, deals with this question in a thoughtful manner on his blog.
One other point I want to make which I intended to address in my presentation at the Risk and Crisis Communication conference, but ran out of time. I call it the “Democratization of Truth.” The idea is simply this: an individual post, or blog, or tweet, or wiki submission may be horribly wrong. A whole lot of them around a specific event or topic may be wrong. But if enough people from a variety of vantage points, perspectives and points of view contribute, the truth will likely emerge. Sort of like on a bell curve.
And that is how blogging overall can be considered even more trustworthy in some respects than the mainstream media. The filter is not a professional editing team nor a commitment to credibility. The filter is the mass who will not stand for misinformation. Hence, wikipedia can be more accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica–the power of the volunteer masses.