[catone]

Actually, here's what MG gets wrong.

The Twitter story was this: "BULLETIN — REPORT: FAMED GOLFER TIGER WOODS SERIOUSLY INJURED AFTER CRASH NEAR FLORIDA HOME."

And the CNN story (30-45 min later), was this: "(CNN) — Golfer Tiger Woods was injured in a car accident near his home, Florida officials say."

When all was said and done, which was more correct? The answer is CNN's. Woods was not "seriously injured," he was treated for facial lacerations and was, quote "fine," according to his agent (http://twitter.com/darrenrovell1/status/6121135958).

Twitter might win on speed, but CNN ultimately won (this time) on accuracy. They knew about the Woods incident as soon as everyone else did -- to think they don't watch Twitter like everyone else would be silly -- but they likely spent that extra half hour doing what no one on Twitter does: actual journalism (as in, checking sources).

(Note: I'm personally not a fan of process journalism, something that MG's boss avidly promotes... report first get the facts later is a sad future if it is indeed the future of how the news is disseminated, imho.)