I think the number of vacuous articles about Twitter is partly due to its sudden popularity (obviously), but also because it's harder to discover the use of such a service. Sure, it's largely used for inane updates, but obviously it can have some interesting uses, such as keeping up with very current news/trends and social activities (ie: going to the bar at X, anyone up?).
However, to find out about these uses can take quite a bit of searching, especially if the reporter doesn't know anyone on Twitter. Granted, this is supposed to be the author's job, but I can understand that they wouldn't want to waste their time on what appears to simply be a worthless fad.
Really, I think the only way we'll see a decent article on Twitter is from someone who's used the service for a while, and has actually taken the time to find the signal among the noise. However, as most of these articles were probably pumped out within a few days due to deadlines, we won't find something like this among the major newspapers.
However, to find out about these uses can take quite a bit of searching, especially if the reporter doesn't know anyone on Twitter. Granted, this is supposed to be the author's job, but I can understand that they wouldn't want to waste their time on what appears to simply be a worthless fad.
Really, I think the only way we'll see a decent article on Twitter is from someone who's used the service for a while, and has actually taken the time to find the signal among the noise. However, as most of these articles were probably pumped out within a few days due to deadlines, we won't find something like this among the major newspapers.