It was just after Joe Biden got to the "malarkey" that I caught up with the vice presidential debate Thursday. For me, it marked a milestone in the national ticket debates that began with the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy encounter.
Not that the word made any history, though it did draw some commentary as people tried to track its origin. (From Irish-American usage, linguists say; beyond that, they don't know.) When the vice president said "malarkey," I found myself at one of those media crossroads that signifies how the world is changing.
Back in 1960, we're told, people who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won, and those who watched on TV gave the victory to Kennedy. If you want to get a similar reading on an event nowadays, like the back-and-forth between Biden and his challenger, Rep. Paul Ryan, you would need to include social media.
That's how I followed the debate for the first hour or so. Don't let that word get out, please, because I was doing something else very important and previously scheduled during that time. But every couple of minutes I surreptitiously checked my BlackBerry for an update on Twitter and a couple of live blogs. Following the news, I reasoned, is my job.
But I wasn't alone. During the first presidential debate, one-third of the audience under age 40 followed along on digital devices — smart phones, laptops and tablets. No doubt the statistic was similar Thursday evening. It has become popular to watch news events as they unfold on TV and simultaneously keep a digital device going as a "second screen" for commentary and depth.
Because I wasn't near a TV, my little screen was the only way I tracked the debate. It's also how I followed the New York state Senate's historic passage of legislation to allow same-sex marriage in the summer of 2011. If you're following the right people on social media and paying attention to good blogs, it's great: exciting and thorough, with no interruption of the live event.
And what does that suggest for legacy media organizations, like daily newspapers?
First, what we provide the next day in print needs to be either pitched forward — that is, presenting you what's going to happen next — or else so thoughtful an analysis of the news event that it's a step better than anything available as a news event occurs. As more people adopt second screens and digital tracking of breaking news, a story recounting what happened will be of diminishing value; why and how something is happening will become more our stock in trade.
Second, we news organizations need to become adept at providing second screen coverage ourselves. If you were watching the national political conventions during the summer, for example, you might have gotten a good dose of local coverage by simultaneously reading the Twitter feed of Times Union political writer Jimmy Vielkind, who was on the scene. We'll give you more of that sort of coverage in the future.
Social media is increasingly the way people get news. My 17-year-old daughter isn't out of touch with what's going on, but it's not because she's reading the print edition of the Times Union; she's getting referrals to news from her friends on Facebook.
One in seven people on the planet is an active Facebook user. If Facebook was a country, it would rank just behind China and India in size, and ahead of America. One-fifth of Americans get news from Facebook, and one-third of young adults do so.
Increasingly, those people are using mobile devices to get that news. In fact, getting news has become the second-most popular activity on mobile devices, including tablets and smart phones. More than four out of 10 people who buy tablets (like the iPad) say they're consuming more news, according to a new study from Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism.
This doesn't mean tablets and mobile phones are going to provide the financial safety net that American newspapers so desperately need. We still must figure out the right formula for deriving some income from the millions of people who get news from us digitally, and who have become accustomed to information being free if it's not in print.
But it's pretty clear that Americans are becoming comfortable with consuming news digitally — even the kind of breaking story that long ago went from being the province of print to being television's bread-and-butter. Now it's digital's baby.
And here's one more advantage: Right at your fingertips, then and there, you can argue over who won a debate, and who was offering the malarkey.
Rex Smith is editor of the Times Union. Share your thoughts at http://blogs.timesunion.com/editors