<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: UK newspapers add 213,892 Twitter followers in a month</title>
	<atom:link href="http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2009/09/02/twitter-newspaper-september/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2009/09/02/twitter-newspaper-september/</link>
	<description>This is a conversation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:06:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: focoafrprtng</title>
		<link>http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2009/09/02/twitter-newspaper-september/comment-page-1/#comment-199179</link>
		<dc:creator>focoafrprtng</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:14:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlinejournalismblog.com/?p=3365#comment-199179</guid>
		<description>Instant updates like twitter have forced reporters to work a lot harder. They have to constantly be keeping up on news. Not like every hour constantly for the website, but every few minutes, or whenever something new happens. If they aren&#039;t, somebody else probably is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Instant updates like twitter have forced reporters to work a lot harder. They have to constantly be keeping up on news. Not like every hour constantly for the website, but every few minutes, or whenever something new happens. If they aren&#8217;t, somebody else probably is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cool stuff &#8211; September 7, 2009 &#8212; Danny Whatmough.com</title>
		<link>http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2009/09/02/twitter-newspaper-september/comment-page-1/#comment-156617</link>
		<dc:creator>Cool stuff &#8211; September 7, 2009 &#8212; Danny Whatmough.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:34:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlinejournalismblog.com/?p=3365#comment-156617</guid>
		<description>[...] UK newspapers add 213,892 Twitter followers in a month [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] UK newspapers add 213,892 Twitter followers in a month [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Wardman</title>
		<link>http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2009/09/02/twitter-newspaper-september/comment-page-1/#comment-155781</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Wardman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlinejournalismblog.com/?p=3365#comment-155781</guid>
		<description>&gt;(Of course, you could argue that the number of followers is a pointless metric, especially with accounts that have a following/follower ratio of close to 1 …).

I couldn&#039;t possibly comment that (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.twitter.com/mattwardman&quot;&gt;cough&lt;/a&gt;). But I think that there are also factors such as whether someone has an existing platform or profile, which makes quite a bit of difference.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;(Of course, you could argue that the number of followers is a pointless metric, especially with accounts that have a following/follower ratio of close to 1 …).</p>
<p>I couldn&#8217;t possibly comment that (<a href="http://www.twitter.com/mattwardman">cough</a>). But I think that there are also factors such as whether someone has an existing platform or profile, which makes quite a bit of difference.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: malcolmcoles</title>
		<link>http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2009/09/02/twitter-newspaper-september/comment-page-1/#comment-155763</link>
		<dc:creator>malcolmcoles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:51:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlinejournalismblog.com/?p=3365#comment-155763</guid>
		<description>Matt: yes, mostly newsfeeds. When I &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/newspapers-on-twitter/&quot;&gt;started counting in July&lt;/a&gt;, I pointed out that:
Out of 131 accounts, just 24 do something other than running as a glorified RSS feed. The other 107 do no retweeting, no replying to other tweets etc. 

@timesfashion is one of the 24 - it&#039;s very engaged with its readers. No surprise, maybe, that it&#039;s risen to number 2? (Of course, you could argue that the number of followers is a pointless metric, especially with accounts that have a following/follower ratio of close to 1 ...).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt: yes, mostly newsfeeds. When I <a href="http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/newspapers-on-twitter/">started counting in July</a>, I pointed out that:<br />
Out of 131 accounts, just 24 do something other than running as a glorified RSS feed. The other 107 do no retweeting, no replying to other tweets etc. </p>
<p>@timesfashion is one of the 24 &#8211; it&#8217;s very engaged with its readers. No surprise, maybe, that it&#8217;s risen to number 2? (Of course, you could argue that the number of followers is a pointless metric, especially with accounts that have a following/follower ratio of close to 1 &#8230;).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Wardman</title>
		<link>http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2009/09/02/twitter-newspaper-september/comment-page-1/#comment-155547</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Wardman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:32:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlinejournalismblog.com/?p=3365#comment-155547</guid>
		<description>Am I right in assuming that these are mainly newsfeeds?

I find the figures surprisingly low - is that because newspapers online have minimal direct person-to-person contact. Compare with media with more intimate contact e.g., radio.

It is worth noting that individual journalist with their &quot;personal work related&quot; feeds would be very high on that list.

e.g., Jemima Kiss on 13k, Jack Schofield 7k, Charles Arthur 9k (all Guardian again).



Also the prof. feed of Journalism.co.uk would be 5 on this list.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Am I right in assuming that these are mainly newsfeeds?</p>
<p>I find the figures surprisingly low &#8211; is that because newspapers online have minimal direct person-to-person contact. Compare with media with more intimate contact e.g., radio.</p>
<p>It is worth noting that individual journalist with their &#8220;personal work related&#8221; feeds would be very high on that list.</p>
<p>e.g., Jemima Kiss on 13k, Jack Schofield 7k, Charles Arthur 9k (all Guardian again).</p>
<p>Also the prof. feed of Journalism.co.uk would be 5 on this list.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2009/09/02/twitter-newspaper-september/comment-page-1/#comment-154998</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:05:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlinejournalismblog.com/?p=3365#comment-154998</guid>
		<description>Malcolm: Most Scottish papers don&#039;t submit to ABCe but Scotsman.com does: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&amp;storycode=44210&amp;c=1</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Malcolm: Most Scottish papers don&#8217;t submit to ABCe but Scotsman.com does: <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&amp;storycode=44210&amp;c=1" rel="nofollow">http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&amp;storycode=44210&amp;c=1</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: links for 2009-09-03 &#171; Jon Bernstein</title>
		<link>http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2009/09/02/twitter-newspaper-september/comment-page-1/#comment-154997</link>
		<dc:creator>links for 2009-09-03 &#171; Jon Bernstein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:02:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlinejournalismblog.com/?p=3365#comment-154997</guid>
		<description>[...] UK Newspapers add 213,892 Twitter followers in a month &#8230;or 17% on August 1. [Malcolm Coles, Online Journalism Blog] (tags: Twitter Newspapers Social_Media) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] UK Newspapers add 213,892 Twitter followers in a month &#8230;or 17% on August 1. [Malcolm Coles, Online Journalism Blog] (tags: Twitter Newspapers Social_Media) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stefan</title>
		<link>http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2009/09/02/twitter-newspaper-september/comment-page-1/#comment-154992</link>
		<dc:creator>Stefan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 11:50:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlinejournalismblog.com/?p=3365#comment-154992</guid>
		<description>The national UK newspapers in Twitter are mostly the Guardian presence, because the others are practically nonexistent in this social channel.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The national UK newspapers in Twitter are mostly the Guardian presence, because the others are practically nonexistent in this social channel.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: malcolm coles</title>
		<link>http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2009/09/02/twitter-newspaper-september/comment-page-1/#comment-154965</link>
		<dc:creator>malcolm coles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:32:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlinejournalismblog.com/?p=3365#comment-154965</guid>
		<description>Nick: I&#039;ve discussed the issue around Scottish papers in the comments &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/guardiantech-million-followers/&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; before. I may be calling them the wrong thing (but can&#039;t think of a better name - the UK thing is more to stop Americans thinking the Times is the NY Times which has happened before!). The Scottish ones don&#039;t take part in the ABCes so I tend to exclude them from my newspaper comparisons. Still, I should probably exclude the FT on that basis some months.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nick: I&#8217;ve discussed the issue around Scottish papers in the comments <a href="http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/guardiantech-million-followers/">here</a> before. I may be calling them the wrong thing (but can&#8217;t think of a better name &#8211; the UK thing is more to stop Americans thinking the Times is the NY Times which has happened before!). The Scottish ones don&#8217;t take part in the ABCes so I tend to exclude them from my newspaper comparisons. Still, I should probably exclude the FT on that basis some months.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George Hopkin</title>
		<link>http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2009/09/02/twitter-newspaper-september/comment-page-1/#comment-154964</link>
		<dc:creator>George Hopkin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:32:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlinejournalismblog.com/?p=3365#comment-154964</guid>
		<description>Ah, beaten to the punch. And that&#039;s &#039;my wages&#039;, of course, not &#039;by wages&#039;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, beaten to the punch. And that&#8217;s &#8216;my wages&#8217;, of course, not &#8216;by wages&#8217;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
