Scoble has a rant about how much CNN sucks because it wasn't covering the Iranian election aftermath the way that it was "covered" on Twitter. I'm not defending CNN or indicating that they're some bastion of journalistic integrity, but what annoys me is that Scoble and other techie/social media nerds launch into these masturbatory tirades to champion "their" new media, and I think they're somewhat full of crap.
The core problem that I see with this is that immediacy is confused with quality. In the case of news, it's a lot like a gossipping knitting circle. Things on Twitter can fester into facts without any verification, and when someone figures out they're not facts, no one is accountable. Short messages offer no context, there's no filtering mechanism, there's no verification. What you're left with is a series of possibilities in a sea of noise.
Mainstream news outlets will take longer to get the story. I don't understand how that makes them less effective for any news short of something that puts my immediate safety in danger (nuclear war, checmical attacks, etc.). God forbid the day that fear and panic is spread via social media for something completely untrue.
And honestly, this immediacy versus quality thing is not limited to news. There's irony in Scoble's post that, in the very same post, he rants about how awesome it was to meet up with Twitter's founder. If he put these in the same post, that says to me that these two topics are of equal importance to him. There is little question in my mind that the quality of face to face human interaction is far greater than the trivial and immediate virtual contact that comes from online social media.