But this is the problem with the public sphere's quick embrace of Twitter. It's intimacy without communication. McCaskill doesn't actually say anything in 140 characters or less. The illusion of transparency comes because in everyday life, we only hear about the dinner plans of people we actually have a relationship with. What's useful about intimacy, however, isn't the exchange of trivia but the access to different perspectives. And I'd really like to hear her perspective! It would be rather nice if senators and congressmen routinely wrote posts explaining their thinking on major issues. A public service, even. Instead, they've all embraced Twitter.It's not just McCaskill. It's McCain and Dodd and Hoekstra and Boehner and a half dozen more converts every day. And that's no accident. Twitter allows the benefits of blogs -- an authentic connection with your audience -- without exposing you to the dangers of actual, substantive engagement.
I think that's a fairly accurate assessment of Twitter. One the one hand, the Twitter message size limit really lowers the entry barrier to posting anything. It's just not that hard to write 140 characters about anything. On the other hand, because it's really hard to make any kind of sustained point in 140 characters, unless you're incredibly good with words if you want to say anything substantive (i.e., something other than "On my way to the airport") you're mostly limited to preaching to the converted, snark, one-liners, etc. After all, what else could you be expected to say in the space allotted? On the third hand, a lot of people's blogging was lifestyle updates anyway, and Twitter actually seems like a more suitable medium for that: if you want to blog about your new hat it's a lot easier if you don't feel like you have to write a review of it.