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.
Notes
-
infoneer-pulse reblogged this from attentionindustry
-
attentionindustry reblogged this from wiesen and added:
The assumption that news from a mainstream site has been fact-checked is completely out of line with the current...
-
akaplan716 reblogged this from auciello
-
lilyb liked this
-
chriscavs reblogged this from mikehudack and added:
I’d be interested to know too.
-
wildcraw liked this
-
crookedindifference liked this
-
benonymous liked this
-
blanddiva11 liked this
-
buyhercandy liked this
-
ags reblogged this from mikehudack and added:
This is a great point and one that we take to heart at Pinyadda. We can do better than this, and we hope you like it....
-
gbattle reblogged this from wiesen and added:
gbattle sez: 17 minutes is a long time when that breaking information is actionable. In certain circles where money is...
-
infoneer-pulse reblogged this from mikehudack
-
doublejack liked this
-
great-perhaps liked this
-
coyotesqrl liked this
-
sharingtime reblogged this from soupsoup and added:
IMAGINE WHAT YOU COULD HAVE DONE WITH THAT IMPORTANT NEWS ABOUT BALLOON BOY IN THOSE 17 MINUTES. Seriously, when the...
-
andrearosen liked this
-
vneckandacardigan liked this
-
mikehudack liked this
-
auciello reblogged this from mikehudack and added:
Once again, in the rush to curate the news as quickly as possible, I’d rather shoot first, ask questions later, as the...
-
mzchief reblogged this from soupsoup
-
wiesen reblogged this from mikehudack and added:
Also - for what percentage of “breaking news” does 17 minutes genuinely matter? Unless it’s “A tidal wave is heading...
-
sixbucks liked this
-
arig liked this
-
hughbot liked this
-
damonator liked this
-
jonathan-cunningham reblogged this from soupsoup and added:
The internet has brought collaboration to an astounding new level. Competition no longer drive invention or ingenuity...
-
mikehudack reblogged this from soupsoup and added:
I’d like to better understand what percentage of that “breaking news” that hits social nets is incorrect. Is the 17...
-
soupsoup posted this
