What is tweaking on twitter

Participants were encouraged to answer trivia questions about recent pop culture events for the opportunity to win gift cards and other prizes. The success they saw during that campaign inspired them to create similar campaigns every year to attract attention to their profiles and encourage followers to engage with them on Twitter.

Using paid ads on Twitter is a great way to reach your audience in a more direct way than waiting for organic reach. Promoted Tweets can expand your reach more quickly. You pay a monthly fee as long as you want the promoted Tweet to remain posted.

Users can interact with promoted Tweets in the same way they interact with organic content. Progressive uses promoted Tweets to advertise their competitor pricing feature. The ads are true to their brand and are not overly promotional. In fact, they encourage users to go to their website to find the best insurance rates, even if they end up not using Progressive. Even though Tweets remain on your profile forever unless deleted, Twitter moves so fast that something you Tweeted 30 minutes ago may very well be invisible to your followers.

According to a study by Wiselytics, one Tweet has a half-life of 24 minutes. This makes posting consistently and at the right time , the key to finding success on Twitter. Power out? No problem. Tweets like that, which happen at the right place at the right time, can generate massive engagement and virality.

But these spur of the moment Tweets are the exception to the rule. The majority of your Tweets should be intentionally scheduled ahead of time for maximum reach.

Knowing the right time to Tweet makes scheduling a consistent flow of Tweets much more manageable. Best practices recommend Tweeting at least once per day. Some brands Tweet up to 15 times per day to stay in front of their audience. Best practices can differ across industries. So it depends on your resources and social media strategy to determine how frequently you can create and publish new content on twitter.

It helps to use a platform like Sprout to visualize when to post your content to make sure posts go out consistently and at the optimal times. The political violence incited by Trump—and the targeting of reporters during the attack—show in starkest terms the consequences of his language. His unwillingness to accept electoral defeat manifested itself as the creation of an alternative reality filled with fraud and conspiracies that had no evidence. His contempt toward the press paved the way not only for his supporters to disbelieve accurate reporting, but to take a hostile position toward most of the profession, outside a few right-wing news organizations.

His constant berating of news as fake and journalists as biased had built a wall in their minds, and no well-reported news story was going to break through and convince them otherwise. To storm the Capitol is to be a true believer in Trump and to discount all other voices. As we look back at this incident, perhaps the question that lingers above all others is, How did we get here?

And what do we do about it? These questions are bigger than any single book can tackle, and our part is to ask how the state of journalism has arrived at this point. Of course, journalists still engage in watchdog reporting, churning out resource-intensive, in-depth investigations and challenging dubious official claims on a regular basis. Many people have been outraged by the lies, malfeasance, and incompetence that have been reported. But these accounts also get lost in the crush of news stories and media content that compete for our fragmented attention.

When journalism can no longer serve the public according to its mandate, when it can no longer muster broad, sustained attention and collective indignation, then we find ourselves in a moment of epistemic crisis and in need of fresh perspectives. His removal from social media platforms did not reset the media culture that has arisen.

And his relative silence since leaving office did not restore trust in news or lessen the populist backlash against pluralism. This book is a reimagining of news after Trump. Much of the research about journalism shares an unspoken assumption that news is always at the center of social and political processes.

Even when journalism is made an object of critique, its social centrality is rarely questioned. This pluralistic view acknowledges how our lives are saturated with mediated experience. First, it includes the changing technologies, infrastructures, and institutions of media. This aspect of media culture also pertains to the structures that arise, including organizational and economic forms such as social media platforms.

The second aspect involves the communicative practices taking place though these various media channels. People use media in myriad ways, and these practices should be understood as both dependent on the materiality of media technology and institutions and as adaptations to these structures. The final aspect is the realm of interpretation about these practices and structures.

Media allow us to create particular symbolic forms that are collectively meaningful. The media culture is an expansive space of actors and actions, of which journalism is only one part. Even journalism contains its own subcultures, including conservative news cultures. The changing media culture is most notable for facilitating a panoply of mediated voices. Given how this process has unfolded over the past decades, it is easy to lose sight of the transformations that have occurred.

From the expansion of mass communication forms such as cable television and talk radio to emergent digital channels and social media platforms, the overall shift has been the same: more communicators are engaging in a growing variety of practices through expanding networks of communicative flows.

All of this decenters journalism and thus requires a broader conceptual framework attuned to positioning news discourse as just one form among many. Journalistic content circulates within but is clearly not exclusive to a variety of media channels—from television networks and social media platforms to radio stations and mobile apps.

Plus, the existence of so many mediated voices alters how journalism is understood through the increasing numbers of alternative formats for conveying information, which in turn provide more spaces for media criticism to flourish.

These limits concentrated attention on a small number of channels, which had the effect of producing a consensus-based news environment fed by lucrative revenues from advertisers needing to reach consumers.

Hallin was already writing in about the dissolution of this moment for a variety of reasons that remain quite familiar: the collapse of the Cold War consensus ushered in stark political differences; distrust of institutions was rising; news reporting was becoming more adversarial; and the profit motive p. While Hallin was writing about change, his formulation is also telling for how it articulated the resilience with which journalists would see themselves and their social role.

A generation later, we can see how this normative imagination of journalism still retains its modernist thinking even as the political, technological, and cultural conditions have continued to shift around it. The defining characteristic of this modernist model of journalistic relevance is how journalists have staked out a paradoxical social position in which they situate themselves as being culturally central while they simultaneously distance themselves from power.

Normatively, this position allows journalists to gain access to power and to place themselves within democratic practices as central actors for the proper functioning of democracy—but this works only so far as journalists also accentuate their autonomy from power. But, in years of journalism research, the distance side of the equation has received far more attention than the centrality side.

However, we need to avoid dichotomous thinking that reduces relevance to its presence or absence—the notion that news is either relevant or irrelevant—or reduces it to some sort of measurement. On the one hand, journalism remains a powerful institution in democratic life and one that supports other powerful institutions. As an institution charged with representing social reality to mass audiences, it shapes collective understandings of the world we share. As an institution with a set of practices, it influences how political candidates act and eventually govern.

Much of the criticism directed at journalists for their political coverage is predicated on the belief that journalists often wield this power rather poorly. At the core of their jobs, journalists still decide what counts as news and tell us why events matter.

By relevance, therefore, we refer to the collective capacity of the American press to fulfill these instrumental, informational, symbolic, and democratic roles of consequence. That journalism can be both relevant and irrelevant—that it is both fundamentally broken and yet a considerable force to be reckoned with—reflects the complicated media culture that has emerged.

These opposing positions provide indices of the complex social relationships that define contemporary p. Discussing one side without the other misrepresents the state of journalism.

Conversely, treating journalism as unchanged by seismic shifts in the media culture uncouples news from its very real struggles. Taken together, these positions on journalistic relevance suggest a time of confusion and fragility, but also a period of readjustment. Ultimately, what we gain from foregrounding journalistic relevance is greater recognition that journalists do not control the conditions in which they operate. They do not create new technologies, or govern media economics, or dictate that they be listened to.

Digital networks alter communication flows, allowing for new forms of interactivity that compete with news think of the ocean of time spent online—on YouTube, Instagram, Netflix, TikTok, and so on—and how only a tiny fraction of it is spent on anything resembling journalism ; 35 shifts in advertising models result in financial woes for news organizations; the rise of polarization and changing news audience habits give rise to news fatigue and consequently news avoidance; and sustained, orchestrated attempts at undermining journalism abound all around the world.

These transformations, which we will delve into throughout this book, are tense, conflicted, and ongoing. They are not uniform or consensual. They have deep roots, and their consequences range from shifts in the everyday experience of how news gets made and consumed to debates over what kind of normative footing journalism should have in this political and media environment.

We have argued that focusing on relevance as a conceptual lens for thinking about journalism decenters journalism by placing it as one communicative practice among others within a larger media culture. Certainly many have a vested interest in the continued relevance of journalists, from working journalists to journalism educators to scholars of journalism like us.

But our chief concern is not the well-being of journalists or the perpetuation of the news industry for its own sake. Rather, our interest lies in the status of news as a form of collective knowledge and how this knowledge has power to shape collective thinking about the world we inhabit. News has long been recognized as distinct from other domains of knowledge that tend toward the systematic and the esoteric.

This divergence from other, more formalized forms of knowledge generation such as science and medicine should not minimize the importance of journalism as a way of knowing, but instead direct our attention to the interpretive structures of news narratives. It directs attention to how news is assembled as a knowledge form 39 while also positioning these forms within the where of their social settings. News cannot be understood apart from this cultural context; it makes no sense without it.

Journalists cannot force anyone to accept their stories as valid and true. It is the product of ongoing legitimation strategies meant to establish, maintain, or repair the status of journalism in the face of contestation.

Understanding, then, how journalists come to be acknowledged as authoritative storytellers in society or not is an essential element in investigating how journalism and its knowledge claims gain or lose relevance in a media culture in transition.

Our interest is not in any single news story, journalist, or incident, but rather how they amalgamate into a larger struggle over systems of public knowledge. Ultimately, these epistemic contests are conflicts over what truthful accounts ought to look like and who ought to create them.

What journalism is becomes the object of these contests. This focus on epistemic p. This focus sidesteps questions of truth to instead emphasize news as a type of epistemic accomplishment occurring within a social space. When we speak of relevance within the framework offered by the epistemology of news, what we are concerned about is the status of news as an institutional form of knowledge production. It directs attention to journalism as an idea—a way of thinking about how to communicate accurately, systematically, widely, and legitimately about events in the world.

In this way, an epistemic view of journalism helps dispel any notion that news is simply a recitation of facts devoid of normative assumptions. Rather, clearly in its representational practices, the news always communicates values about the world in how it identifies what is good or bad, worthy of inclusion or able to be ignored.

The focus on epistemic contests also helps us connect discussion of journalism with larger issues of power. When objective news emerged as the symbolic core of US journalism in the past century, it coexisted with partisan and alternative news formats from tabloid newspapers to political p. Moreover, the experiences of news organizations vary widely; at a time when the New York Times and Washington Post pursue aggressive, nationally based digital growth strategies, many local news outlets struggle with declining audiences and lost revenues.

Digital news startups rise and fall with promises of improvements and innovation, 45 while local television news wedded to familiar formulas continues to reach millions of daily viewers. The nightly network newscasts continue to sum up the day with their anchor-led gravity, while MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News carve out their pundit-led, partisan niches in their competition for eyeballs.

Absolutely not, and in the book we talk about both the multifaceted nature of journalism as it exists now and, importantly, the broader conceptions of journalists and journalism that might emerge in the future. This is the model of journalism taught in introductory news writing courses or conjured when one is asked to think about news. That its symbolic value is disproportionate to its actual existence speaks to both its resilience and its weakness. How this normative understanding shapes the ways in which journalists approach questions of who, what, when, where, why, and how reveals visions of how democracy ought to operate.

Ultimately it is the struggle over journalism —the fight to define it, defend it, and demean it—that p. The stakes of this struggle are not just what happens to journalism, but what happens to our communities—politically and logistically, but also socially, culturally, and morally.

The seemingly improbable rise of Donald Trump as a viable candidate for president, his eventual surprise electoral victory in , his tumultuous, scandal-filled four years as president, and his loss to Joe Biden in , provide a prism through which to examine issues of journalistic relevance and epistemic contests around journalism.

Even if Trump did not create the conditions that made all of his actions possible, how he exploited them reveals fissures within the present media culture. Trump, with his knee-jerk antagonism toward journalists and his flagrant departure from the behavioral norms of the presidency, allows us to see more clearly how the forces of fragmentation, polarization, illiberalism, and demagogic populism have planted themselves in this media culture, while simultaneously serving as a warning sign of their consequences.

His presence continuously amplified public discussions around the role of journalism, which led to a moment for reflection and reform. Although some of the vaccines rapidly rolled out to protect people from COVID are based on cutting-edge viral vector and messenger RNA technologies, not enough doses of them can be produced for everyone.

Credit: Baylor College of Medicine. When Bottazzi and her colleagues set out to make a SARS vaccine in , they went for recombinant protein technology that had been in use since the s. Their yeast-expressed candidate, based on the receptor-binding domain of the SARS-CoV spike protein, was thermally stable and could be easily scaled up, making it ideal for manufacture in low- and middle-income countries 5.

The result is Corbevax, now being tested in a phase III trial in India — where more than 10, cases and hundreds of deaths are being reported every day. The Indian government has pre-ordered million doses. Bottazzi was born in Italy but grew up in Honduras, where she experienced at first hand the burden of tropical diseases, especially on rural populations. Alongside her academic focus, Bottazzi studied business and management. Those who want to succeed in vaccine science must learn to communicate better with non-scientists, says Bottazzi.

But we have to get out of the cocoons of our labs, stop speaking in complex terminology and learn to engage effectively with funders, policymakers, industry and general audiences. Bottazzi is both thrilled by, and nervous at, reports from India suggesting Corbevax could be rolled out before the end of the year.

This article is part of Nature Career Guide: Vaccines , an editorially independent supplement. Advertisers have no influence over the content. Wrapp, D. Science , — PubMed Article Google Scholar. Pallesen, J. Natl Acad. USA , E—E Chia, W. Lancet Microbe 2 , e—e NPJ Vaccines 6 , 65 Chen, W. Vaccines Immunother. Article Google Scholar. Vaccine 38 , — Download references. Career Column 12 NOV News 11 NOV Career Guide 10 NOV News 08 NOV Nature Index 27 OCT University of Washington UW.

Francis Crick Institute. Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.