You are on page 1of 2

Twitter has always been the springboard for expanding our message.

To say that it was our center, or “bottom,” of our traditional research pyramid (implying a hierarchical model) would be appropriate in is conception but not entirely true. The Twitter campaign has had a unique reflexive nature about its existence as both platform for highlighting already reported upon issues in other publications, as well as an internal group bibliography a source of other cited sources that has branched out between individuals, and influenced our overall scope as time has progressed. That being said, our initial impetus and focus for the original posts were about our discovered issues surrounding the hac!neyed “ dar! underbelly” of bottling companies our hopes were to function as a foil for the somewhat illicit practices and communicate to the average consumer why purchasing bottled water was not only adding to the environmental problems associated with excess plastic refuse, but obscuring an equally good and free source of water from the tap. This theme of fiscal irresponsibility permeated through to our introductory video pro"ects, and to the posters, inspiring some of the logos oriented tidbits to boast facts li!e “all bottled water is #$ percent tap.” %et at this point, our feed was not only becoming a place to post our research, but to draw from it. &ur coverage expanded to the political a recent story concerning 'overnor (ic! )cott*s decision to sue 'eorgia and +labama over its use of the +palachicola (iver spar!ed an outlet for us to pursue more political ramifications. )imply searching for core material led to the ),-./ story about 0iagara 1alls 2ottling 3o. and their plans to renew their 345, hoping to reserve more 1loridian water for their personal profit. This “tangent” practice of posting new but relevant information forced us as composers to integrate content based on its generic proximity to politics, local issues, national implications, and so forth. Twitter*s identity, as it progressed, became less of a destination for our “found texts” and more of a rhi6ome an interlin!ed and lateral composition that referenced focused dichotomies li!e “inside vs. out” (ex. 7ow we could report water issues based on perspectives li!e the utility manager, or, “common man”). 8nstead of the passive and subordinate nature of academic discourse li!e term papers and

researched dissertations, Twitter*s ability to push bac! and contort to the dynamic landscape of information technologies pushed our own message into fields of relevance we otherwise might have not explored.