Utah is on Twitter

http://twitter.com/UtahGov
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/services/2008-09-25-twitter-utah-government_N.htm

Perhaps I'm behind the times, but I don't really understand the appeal of Twitter, which is a page of mini-blog posts about any subject, none of which are much longer than a sentence.

I appreciate the pros of Twitter: it's easy to use, quick to post to, easy to catch up on, and with some programs, now even searchable. It is, however, very informal and very brief, and if there is anything listed in the "tweets" that I'd like to know about, I then have to go research it on my own. I would rather that the blogs be a paragraph long and tell me the basics of what I need to know, rather than a headline and a url.

Of course, this could be my personal bias. I have also blogged about disliking touchscreen phones and Google Chrome, even though I really don't have anything against them (I believe that once my work day is over, I'm too grouchy to appreciate up-and-coming technology). It seems that I'm one of few who aren't big Twitter fans, since the state government of Utah is now using Twitter to stay in touch with residents.

While I appreciate that the government there is staying up to date with technology, the following paragraph confused me a little:
"But when lawmakers convene for a special session Thursday to cut $272 million from the state budget, the first word on what happens will just as likely come from a Tweet, what the short messages are called, as it will from traditional media or blogs. With Twitter, an update takes only as long to post as it does to send a text message."

I know that this says "the first word" and not "the only word," but $272 million is a substantial amount of money, and I think I'd be worried to hear, "we cut $150 million. Details later." Personally, I'd rather wait.