Lorenzo Sierra has a great theory. He may not have hyped it enough, but it’s worth a considering. It’s called the “cyclone of influence.” It has a neat way of explaining, in communication terms, the ever widening circle of influence. It’s very different from the ripple metaphor, he explains. Nor can the cyclone concept be illustrated by your typical PowerPoint icon. It almost requires a 3D perspective spinning and moving in unpredictable paths in real time.

Communication, like some climatic events, are triggered by deliberate or inadvertent human events. The recent Elliot Spitzer cyclone was whipped up in a high pressure area we call infidelity. You could track the scandal on Twitter, as the digital cyclone moved outward, aided by not just gossip publishers, and talk show rants but citizen op-ed writers. People, who were not your typical pundits, were enhancing the story with 140-character Op-eds.

One Michael Parekh wrote: “apparently, Paterson, the likely successor to Spitzer is also a Clinton super-delegate, though apparently not as committed.” Another wrote: Eliot Spitzer is getting Googled today from all over. 10 of the 11 big movers deal with him.

There were those outraged, some funny, and others with insider information like this and this that even journalists covering (enlarging) the event would have appreciated.

Which brings me back to the cyclone concept. Whether the news has the elements (sex scandal, politically incorrect speech, money…) that make it spiral, or is simply hyped by people on a slow news-tweet day, the op-ed factor broadens its footprint. Better get used to it. Especially so if you’re someone who blasts The Media (“Media content has gotten more graphic … “) as Spitzer did.