5 ms·

Many journalists seem to have discovered that becoming noisy, performative blue tick ‘personas’, acting out journalism on Twitter, and saying things like ‘this,

Many journalists seem to have discovered that becoming noisy, performative blue tick ‘personas’, acting out journalism on Twitter, and saying things like ‘this, literally this’ a lot as a substitute for actual analysis is also good for their careers. They act out this status-dance of pretending to loathe every second of life in the toxic digital hellscape that, in the talk tracks and visibility it gives them is actually very beneficial for their careers. They couldn’t actually admit it’s been good for them though, as that would mean admitting profiting from the algorithmic, privacy problem-invested landscape that they barely understand but have made their careers criticizing. But of course, everyone’s at it! So the only way to get ahead is more paranoia, more angst, more toxicity. Once you’re bought in, you can’t go back to tacking to the middle. So we get an arms race of performative angst and hyperbolic statements. Before you know it, you’re claiming that Slack notifications give you PTSD symptoms: https://twitter.com/pfpicardi/status/1220738739514814467?s=21 https://twitter.com/pfpicardi/status/1220738739514814467?s=2... The problem is that that is antithetical to the real work of journalism - which should be about seeking truth without fear or favour.

mc32 7y ago
The problem is that on Twitter they’ve become more like activists rather than journalists/reporters. Maybe one day actual journalists will come to the conclusion that tweeting is antithetical to journalism and may only use it as a tool of discovery rather than engagement.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >The problem is that on Twitter they’ve become more like activists rather than journalists/reporters. The upside though is that it's easier to tell they're activists / non-objective on Twitter - compared to supposedly 'serious' outlets pushing all kinds of agendas as "objective" journalism.
- elfexec 7y ago
  > The problem is that on Twitter they’ve become more like activists rather than journalists/reporters. They've always been activists. Twitter just makes it visible to the public while in the past, their biases were shielded behind the fake PR-driven reputation of an institution. The first newspapers in america were created to lie and spread political ideology. And that has been the case ever since. "As for what is not true you will always find abundance in the newspapers." – Thomas Jefferson "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle." – Thomas Jefferson I wish everyone was taught about the history of the news industry. Also, I wish every media company was forced to notify/warn their audience on who founded the company and why. Like how cigarette and tobacco companies have to put warning labels to notify their customers of the dangers of the product they are selling.
maxerickson 7y ago
What an absurd interpretation of that tweet.
- iagovar 7y ago
  This not an interpretation of that tweet but the current trend in journalism. Is pretty easy to follow actually. Do the exercise to look up for authors of inflammatory articles on Twitter. It's like they've said: Alright, truth is impossible to reach, so let's throw everything out window.
  - ajross 7y ago
    > This not an interpretation of that tweet but the current trend in journalism. You literally paraphrased it as "Before you know it, you’re claiming that Slack notifications give you PTSD symptoms". If you don't agree with that analysis (which is ridiculous: the author is making a joke about being afraid of slack notifications) then why did you give it to us just to deny it later?
    - detaro 7y ago
      /u/iagovar didn't make that comment
    - maxerickson 7y ago
      More than 1 poster involved. But that is the point, the poor interpretation of the single tweet does not particularly bolster the argument analyzing the general behavior of journalists on twitter.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    Universal truth, is, in fact, a bit of an impossibility. ("Truth" being dependent on point of view.) That said, "truth" is also unnecessary. That is, it's unnecessary if a journalist is just reporting the known facts of a situation. If what a journalist really wants to do is tell their own "truth". Then yeah, facts and hard evidence aren't really necessary and putting out their "truth" becomes entirely possible.
specialist 7y ago
What of the publishers, producers, and editors? Do they lack agency in the face of journalistic perfidy? What of public relations, think tanks, and campaigns? Those legions of people paid to push a point of view? It's amusing (tragicomically) that your sole criticism is for the people with least power in a corrupt media ecosystem.
- unishark 7y ago
  whataboutism? The article is about a journalist so we're thinking about how other journalists compare.
  - specialist 7y ago
    Then the correct criticism of journalists is that they don't uphold their integrity in the face of the outrage tsunami. Or, more accurately, most who did are no longer employed as journalists.
    - unishark 7y ago
      > the outrage tsunami I originally read this as "orange tsunami". Which changes the point slightly.
Reedx 7y ago
This is the result of the attention economy and the fact that nothing generates engagement like anger. That's what gets the most clicks and does so much cheaper than real journalism. So performative outrage is what becomes incentivized, both in the news and on twitter in a self-reinforcing cycle. Those who generate and harness the most outrage are the winners of the game. How do we fix this? That's an open question. But I think we need to change the game and the incentives. We probably need a new business model and/or for this kind of news to become widely understood as the junk food entertainment it is. Maybe put a nutrition label or cancer-like warning on them, heh...
- Knulp 7y ago
  Let's take Buzzfeed. Most of what they post is utter clickbait and not really informative. They also do amazing pieces of investigation because this model brought them money and they wanted to use it to do better work. See this article from 2018 that was nominated for a Pullitzer Prize. https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-14-suspected-hits-on-british-soil https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-1... Does that mean you rate Buzzfeed as cancer - including the great reporting they sometimes do ? Or each article independently ? But then who does it ? Open questions here as well ^^
  - luckylion 7y ago
    Radio active material can anecdotally give you super powers, but usually it just gives you cancer. It's generally a good idea to avoid it, because the chances that you don't wake up being able to fly are too high. The same goes for Buzzfeed in my opinion. Yes, there may be something of value every other year, but generally it's shit. You don't want to regularly ingest shit on the off chance that there's some delicious candy in there somewhere.
siruncledrew 7y ago
Journalists today don't even need any instruction, credentials, or experience to be "journalists". It's a media arms-race over who can monopolize territory in the information-space, and companies will take whoever gets them results - not only who is best at their job. Who cares about paying for a staff of $60-80k/year well-seasoned investigative reporters that take weeks-months to produce vivid, informative pieces only for them to be forgotten about for another thing in the 24hr news cycle? Why not just pay a bunch of young people $18/hr to "rehash" 8 articles/day with a bunch of fluff and opinion to pump out more stuff to get more dollars? Why even bother going out into the world to gather information when I could just copy-paste the first story to come out, add a few pictures and edits, then release it to catch the demand-wave for content monetization while it's riding high, and call it a day? The proliferation of 'fake news' is basically just "full-throttle" digital journalism that said, "Fuck it, why even wait around for real-life happenings to report on when I could just create my own and make money?" Journalism is not anymore some "sacred art" or "esteemed profession", like a doctor or lawyer or scientist, it's just another avenue to make dollars from society through supply-demand.

mc32 7y ago

The problem is that on Twitter they’ve become more like activists rather than journalists/reporters. Maybe one day actual journalists will come to the conclusion that tweeting is antithetical to journalism and may only use it as a tool of discovery rather than engagement.

coldtea 7y ago
>The problem is that on Twitter they’ve become more like activists rather than journalists/reporters. The upside though is that it's easier to tell they're activists / non-objective on Twitter - compared to supposedly 'serious' outlets pushing all kinds of agendas as "objective" journalism.
elfexec 7y ago
> The problem is that on Twitter they’ve become more like activists rather than journalists/reporters. They've always been activists. Twitter just makes it visible to the public while in the past, their biases were shielded behind the fake PR-driven reputation of an institution. The first newspapers in america were created to lie and spread political ideology. And that has been the case ever since. "As for what is not true you will always find abundance in the newspapers." – Thomas Jefferson "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle." – Thomas Jefferson I wish everyone was taught about the history of the news industry. Also, I wish every media company was forced to notify/warn their audience on who founded the company and why. Like how cigarette and tobacco companies have to put warning labels to notify their customers of the dangers of the product they are selling.

maxerickson 7y ago

What an absurd interpretation of that tweet.

iagovar 7y ago
This not an interpretation of that tweet but the current trend in journalism. Is pretty easy to follow actually. Do the exercise to look up for authors of inflammatory articles on Twitter. It's like they've said: Alright, truth is impossible to reach, so let's throw everything out window.
- ajross 7y ago
  > This not an interpretation of that tweet but the current trend in journalism. You literally paraphrased it as "Before you know it, you’re claiming that Slack notifications give you PTSD symptoms". If you don't agree with that analysis (which is ridiculous: the author is making a joke about being afraid of slack notifications) then why did you give it to us just to deny it later?
  - detaro 7y ago
    /u/iagovar didn't make that comment
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    More than 1 poster involved. But that is the point, the poor interpretation of the single tweet does not particularly bolster the argument analyzing the general behavior of journalists on twitter.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Universal truth, is, in fact, a bit of an impossibility. ("Truth" being dependent on point of view.) That said, "truth" is also unnecessary. That is, it's unnecessary if a journalist is just reporting the known facts of a situation. If what a journalist really wants to do is tell their own "truth". Then yeah, facts and hard evidence aren't really necessary and putting out their "truth" becomes entirely possible.

specialist 7y ago

What of the publishers, producers, and editors? Do they lack agency in the face of journalistic perfidy? What of public relations, think tanks, and campaigns? Those legions of people paid to push a point of view? It's amusing (tragicomically) that your sole criticism is for the people with least power in a corrupt media ecosystem.

unishark 7y ago
whataboutism? The article is about a journalist so we're thinking about how other journalists compare.
- specialist 7y ago
  Then the correct criticism of journalists is that they don't uphold their integrity in the face of the outrage tsunami. Or, more accurately, most who did are no longer employed as journalists.
  - unishark 7y ago
    > the outrage tsunami I originally read this as "orange tsunami". Which changes the point slightly.

Reedx 7y ago

This is the result of the attention economy and the fact that nothing generates engagement like anger. That's what gets the most clicks and does so much cheaper than real journalism. So performative outrage is what becomes incentivized, both in the news and on twitter in a self-reinforcing cycle. Those who generate and harness the most outrage are the winners of the game. How do we fix this? That's an open question. But I think we need to change the game and the incentives. We probably need a new business model and/or for this kind of news to become widely understood as the junk food entertainment it is. Maybe put a nutrition label or cancer-like warning on them, heh...

Knulp 7y ago
Let's take Buzzfeed. Most of what they post is utter clickbait and not really informative. They also do amazing pieces of investigation because this model brought them money and they wanted to use it to do better work. See this article from 2018 that was nominated for a Pullitzer Prize. https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-14-suspected-hits-on-british-soil https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-1... Does that mean you rate Buzzfeed as cancer - including the great reporting they sometimes do ? Or each article independently ? But then who does it ? Open questions here as well ^^
- luckylion 7y ago
  Radio active material can anecdotally give you super powers, but usually it just gives you cancer. It's generally a good idea to avoid it, because the chances that you don't wake up being able to fly are too high. The same goes for Buzzfeed in my opinion. Yes, there may be something of value every other year, but generally it's shit. You don't want to regularly ingest shit on the off chance that there's some delicious candy in there somewhere.

siruncledrew 7y ago

Journalists today don't even need any instruction, credentials, or experience to be "journalists". It's a media arms-race over who can monopolize territory in the information-space, and companies will take whoever gets them results - not only who is best at their job. Who cares about paying for a staff of $60-80k/year well-seasoned investigative reporters that take weeks-months to produce vivid, informative pieces only for them to be forgotten about for another thing in the 24hr news cycle? Why not just pay a bunch of young people $18/hr to "rehash" 8 articles/day with a bunch of fluff and opinion to pump out more stuff to get more dollars? Why even bother going out into the world to gather information when I could just copy-paste the first story to come out, add a few pictures and edits, then release it to catch the demand-wave for content monetization while it's riding high, and call it a day? The proliferation of 'fake news' is basically just "full-throttle" digital journalism that said, "Fuck it, why even wait around for real-life happenings to report on when I could just create my own and make money?" Journalism is not anymore some "sacred art" or "esteemed profession", like a doctor or lawyer or scientist, it's just another avenue to make dollars from society through supply-demand.