» Breaking news hits social networks in 3 mins; mainstream news sites in 20 mins.
(via @RachelSterne)
I’d like to better understand what percentage of that “breaking news” that hits social nets is incorrect. Is the 17 minute delta the price we pay for accuracy and actionability?
Also - for what percentage of “breaking news” does 17 minutes genuinely matter? Unless it’s “A tidal wave is heading toward Manhattan” I’m generally fine with waiting 17 extra minutes to get something that’s been fact-checked.
gbattle sez:
17 minutes is a long time when that breaking information is actionable. In certain circles where money is attached to information dissemination, like financial markets, even 170 milliseconds can separate the smart from the dumb trade. By the time certain financial information gets on CNBC, much of it is old. When trying to make money quantitatively, perfect information is slow, but sources (individual or aggregate) with a predictive capacity are still quite actionable. Ergo, if a group of users on Twitter predict accurate $GOOG earnings a fraction faster than say expert analysts aggregated by First Call or Bloomberg over the long run, there’s an automated profitable trade to be done. A very wise CEO once told me “There’s always market premium for being first.” This is a truism that is only becoming more compressed over time.
