TV news is continually filling valuable minutes with interviews with the man in the street, when - personally speaking - I'd much rather hear from an expert. And no controversy is ever discussed without mentioning the Facebook group that's been set up to fan the flames further.

(I know this doesn't necessarily add to the discussion, but I like it.)

I was being sent out to record YVONs ("Your Views On the News" i.e. Hilda from Rotherham's thoughts on the new stories of the day) for radio fifteen years ago... and that was hardly new then.

But the form it's now taking - quoting Tweets from the general public - is spectacularly lazy. And even more dull.

But when we're talking about celebrities, I'd much rather see a re-quoted genuine Tweet than a quote "from a close source" (i.e. entirely made up, but can't be sued over it)

from @insertcelebnamehere can be used to create a complete story.

I actually feel sorry for the poor sod somewhere whose job is is to trawl through reams and reams of endless dull, PR-approved, non-contentious tweets from the likes of Michael Owen. It must be like watching time lapse photography in real time, and waiting for a tiny flower to poke its head out from a bed of manure. Then the controversy klaxon finally sounds as Gruntleypool United striker Stevie Spitroast tweets: 'The bleedin' Gaffer's well out of order for dropping me!' Cue back page splash: 'STEVO'S FOUL-MOUTHED FURY AT BIG VERN'S COLD SHOULDER!'.

It's an art form, managing to drag 200 words out of 140 characters, and it's also quite entertaining to look more closely at newspaper stories to spot which ones have been completely spun from just one tweet, without the reporter speaking to anyone directly involved. It's dead easy - scan past the 'direct' quote high up to search out the phrase 'xxxx revealed to fans on Twitter' buried further down.

Back in the day, the hacks would have had to go to the pub to pick this kind of gossip up.

Like JoLean, though, I'm not knocking Twitter itself,which I think gets unfairly maligned by people who think it's full of obnoxious, illiterate, inane nutters. Of course it is. But there are plenty of obnoxious, illiterate, inane nutters on Internet web forums, too, and that doesn't stop us avoiding them and all enjoying ourselves round these here parts instead, does it? Because we've find a place where people post interesting and entertaining stuff, and we (for the most part) play nicely!
It's actually easier to filter out the idiots on Twitter, because you have total control of exactly whose tweets you see. So I for one am happily oblivious to the musings and abusings of Katie Price and Vernon Kay, and yet enjoy an abbreviated version of 'entertainment for lively minds' from many of the Massive Twitterati.

Some people say that Twitter is a stream of information, dive in whenever you want.

I find it more like a swimming pool, and stay clear of the shallow end.

From the marvellous Massive to the down right weird.I spend a goodly amount of my time there with an increasing amount of you lovely people plus along the way I've picked up with some others not counted in our illustrious number.Some of these would be right at home here,some are probably certifiable but entertaining company.The rest I block.As Drakeygirl and others would attest I sure do love a silly hashtag game,simple things....

If you want to combine the ideas "funny" and "twitter", follow David Schneider. His tweets are consistently good value.