The mainstream’s infatuation with Twitter is unquestionably a fad that will burn out before too long.

But to write it off as something that can’t deliver news or benefit the world of journalism is the same kind of close minded attitude that editors once had when refusing to believe that an online edition could replace print. Not to say that a 140 word “tweet” could ever replace the standard 500-600 word news story, however it can supplement it.

Finding out through the service the verdict to a trial would be a godsend, especially if you received it on your old-fashioned, internet-less cell phone while away from the computer.
Sports coverage can also greatly benefit from the service, with an up to the minute update on game scores.

Student Voice Sports editor David Lopez Twittered a Ventura College women’s basketball game from Fresno, providing coverage literally as it happened.

The problem lies with the inability to choose which news to receive.

If you follow either the New York or Los Angeles Times, you’ll be buried in tweets before an hour passes, forcing you to dig through the pile to find something interesting.

Newspapers are long past the “dying” stage, and are now desperately trying to cling to any medium. One of these happens to be Twitter, yet another movement so heavily inspired by ‘Web 2.0″ that also gave us Youtube, Flickr and the entire concept behind the blog.

Twitter also becomes a whole new beast when a smart phone such as an iPhone are brought into the equation, where a tweet can become a free text message that lets you know whether the Celtics won, while you shop for groceries.

If they manage to let me choose which news I want tweeted, then I can see the service living on long after the mainstream stops caring.