If you’re able to read critically, it is not difficult to discern that which is  fact and that which is propaganda. Certainly personal bias may distort the reader’s perception of the material viewed or read………but isn’t that true of anything in the news?

In the end the truth makes itself known.  

For those whose voices have been silenced, these new technological avenues do provide an outlet to the rest of the world.  That said, the Internet is notorious for false reports and hoaxes so a critical eye is imperative.

I have to agree with Liz though, I’m pretty anti-Twitter - the concept of knowing what everyone is doing at all times drives me crazy, but on the world stage and in times of government repression, I suppose it’s good to know its existence can serve a useful purpose.

In the sense that it’s a mechanism by which useful information can be disseminated that otherwise would not be, it is positive. As wOw stated in the sub-head, it is "changing journalism", and circumventing the propaganda machine of an intolerant government. In that respect, it’s extremely powerful and positive, as well.

The negative side is that people can mistake the unfiltered eyewitness accounts as professional journalism, which they are not. Professional journalists are supposed to seek a variety of viewpoints, and have the training, skills and knowledge to (hopefully) provide a more balanced account that is painted with a broader brush. Indeed, the Iranian citizens, and others, who are "reporting" on social websites really would’ve been on the other side of the microphone in the past. Nothing wrong with that, but people should be aware of the distinction.

All in all, though, in this instance, Twitter and the like are changing history in a positive way, helping to undermine and - hopefully, one day - overthrow an oppressive regime.

In todays electronic world anyone can voice their opinion and be heard. In the urge to post not all tweeters get their facts straight. A reporter knows that lives and careers are on the line when a story is filed. They also face personal libel suits if the facts are wrong or deliberately slanted. Tweeters ignore that.

I am not against tweeting but do feel that before a tweet is sent the sender needs to review what is being said and how it is being presented.

While it has served a vaulable purpose in Iran, this is a type of raw media.  It is undisciplined news and is largely unreliable.  Good journalism has been researched, vetted, and cross analyzed.  In the broader sense, I don’t see how Tweets can serve the public well.  There are those with  persuasive writing skills who can easily dupe many people who consider themselves to be  media savvy.  Most people consider themselves a notch above when it comes to politics and religion.

Solid, reputable news is getting harder to come by.  Too much of today’s news alienates a potential audience because of its obvious bias.  Old fashioned reporting was time consuming but validated.  I miss that.

Brutal regimes of the past could keep their atrocities under cover for a longer period of time.  Imagine the holocaust in Rwanda if the public could see the events nearly in real time, and get out the SOS messages via twitter.  Unfortunately, Bill Clinton did know the slaughter was happening in real time, and chose to do nothing.  And Obama is embarrassed that these images are messing up his obsequious pandering to the mullahs.  Obama even used the phrase Supreme Leader which is like a US stateman having referred to Hitler as Her Fuhrer.

So in the end the only way it helps is for voters to pressure their representatives and the president to take political action - because, like Clinton, Obama will not do it on his own.  I’m reading that they are hanging Musavi supporters.  Political decapitation of a budding movement.