3 ms·

Getting a blue check is pretty much standard starting procedure for any new journalist at vice/buzzfeed/vox/etc. It's like part of the on-boarding process. Eve

Getting a blue check is pretty much standard starting procedure for any new journalist at vice/buzzfeed/vox/etc. It's like part of the on-boarding process. Even if you don't have much of a following, your colleagues email someone they know at Twitter and your verified check follows soon after. Twitter's most important and most active users are journalists and they've made that abundantly clear.

gizmo385 7y ago
Once again, do you have a source for this? Many right-wing journalists are also verified on Twitter.
- busterarm 7y ago
  Twitter themselves? "An account may be verified if it is determined to be an account of public interest. Typically this includes accounts maintained by users in music, acting, fashion, government, politics, religion, journalism, media, sports, business, and other key interest areas. A verified badge does not imply an endorsement by Twitter." NeimanLab just sent Twitter an excel spreadsheet to get all o f their employees in. https://twitter.com/ylichterman/status/484780960471592961 https://twitter.com/ylichterman/status/484780960471592961
chipotle_coyote 7y ago
I don't doubt that -- but as Gizmo385 noted, conservative journalists get blue checkmarks, too. (Just as a sort of anecdotal check, I looked up the eight people on the masthead of The Bulwark, a pretty new conservative online publication, and everyone but the art director has a blue checkmark, as do three of the five non-masthead contributors.) So the question still stands. (If you're implicitly suggesting that journalists tend as an overall class to skew left-of-center, there's a good case to be made for that -- but that's not a Twitter bias!)
- busterarm 7y ago
  Yeah, I'm not saying it's to the exclusion of right-leaning journalists. That said, Twitter has removed the blue check almost exclusively from public figures on the right. IMO, even if someone's opinions are monstrous, if they have a verifiable twitter account in good standing, either they should also have a blue check or probably nobody should. Lest somebody impersonate _them_ and say things that are reasonable and confuse people. Not sure it matters though. I think Twitter is a net-negative for society and if we had any sense about us we'd shut such things down.
  - paulgb 7y ago
    It's a shame that Twitter (referring to the Twitter community, but especially the corporate entity) has conflated identify verification with a sort endorsement, including with policies like the one in this article that elevate what blue checks have to say. If they could have avoided that, the solution you propose would be fine, but human nature is to turn every distinction into a symbol of merit.
  - panarky 7y ago
    > Twitter has removed the blue check almost exclusively from public figures on the right Do you have a source for that or is it your opinion? Some of my friends and family are very quick to note that the overrepresentation of black and brown people in prison populations is not evidence of bias, because you have to look at who is committing the crimes. But when it comes to right-wing personalities getting suspended or banned from private platforms, the same people are very slow to comprehend the same logic.
    - busterarm 7y ago
      I'm not going to "citation needed" for stuff that was published as mainstream news. I wasn't espousing any particular party leaning (but if you need to know, I'm a progressive/lefty). This question is in bad faith.
      - panarky 7y ago
        Nah, I've seen the "mainstream news" and it doesn't say Twitter is unverifying mainstream conservatives while not touching mainstream liberals. Twitter banned those using the platform to organize Charlottesville violence and to engage in or promote harassment and violence. Unless you conflate sanctioning harassment and violence with sanctioning "the right", then I'm asking you to substantiate your claim.
dlivingston 7y ago
On an aside...maybe it’s just me, but being a journalist on Twitter and sharing your personal opinions / philosophies / politics seems like a bad idea to me. We trust journalists - the standard, non-opinion column ones - to be something of an impartial, truth-telling messenger on the state of the world. When I go on a journalist’s Twitter page and see that she’s a staunch Marxist or hardcore Randian libertarian, I can’t help but wonder if that strong bias has seeped into her articles...both in what she’s writing to me, and in what she’s omitting.
- busterarm 7y ago
  Trusting journalists in 2020.
- blackflame7000 7y ago
  "We trust journalists" - you might be wise to not do that blindly. Journalist get paid from somebody.
- type0 7y ago
  > I can’t help but wonder if that strong bias has seeped into her articles...both in what she’s writing to me, and in what she’s omitting. They would do that regardless, now at least you can find out their biases.
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  A lot of journalists cite pressure from their employers to be online and "engaged." I think it's probably a bad idea -- possibly in general, but particularly for journalists/columnists -- to say anything on Twitter that you wouldn't say in an an article or column. That doesn't necessarily preclude sharing opinions, philosophies, and politics, but it definitely entails a certain measure of restraint.
rhizome 7y ago
Maybe it's as simple as ex-TWTR ppl tending not to jump ship with their networks to Republican and conservative publications.
GaryNumanVevo 7y ago
I see a TON of small town news reporters who are verified and have less than 500 followers. Perhaps there's some selection bias here, not that "lefty journalists" are more verified, it's just that their posts are more visible through engagement, etc.

gizmo385 7y ago

Once again, do you have a source for this? Many right-wing journalists are also verified on Twitter.

busterarm 7y ago
Twitter themselves? "An account may be verified if it is determined to be an account of public interest. Typically this includes accounts maintained by users in music, acting, fashion, government, politics, religion, journalism, media, sports, business, and other key interest areas. A verified badge does not imply an endorsement by Twitter." NeimanLab just sent Twitter an excel spreadsheet to get all o f their employees in. https://twitter.com/ylichterman/status/484780960471592961 https://twitter.com/ylichterman/status/484780960471592961

chipotle_coyote 7y ago

I don't doubt that -- but as Gizmo385 noted, conservative journalists get blue checkmarks, too. (Just as a sort of anecdotal check, I looked up the eight people on the masthead of The Bulwark, a pretty new conservative online publication, and everyone but the art director has a blue checkmark, as do three of the five non-masthead contributors.) So the question still stands. (If you're implicitly suggesting that journalists tend as an overall class to skew left-of-center, there's a good case to be made for that -- but that's not a Twitter bias!)

busterarm 7y ago
Yeah, I'm not saying it's to the exclusion of right-leaning journalists. That said, Twitter has removed the blue check almost exclusively from public figures on the right. IMO, even if someone's opinions are monstrous, if they have a verifiable twitter account in good standing, either they should also have a blue check or probably nobody should. Lest somebody impersonate _them_ and say things that are reasonable and confuse people. Not sure it matters though. I think Twitter is a net-negative for society and if we had any sense about us we'd shut such things down.
- paulgb 7y ago
  It's a shame that Twitter (referring to the Twitter community, but especially the corporate entity) has conflated identify verification with a sort endorsement, including with policies like the one in this article that elevate what blue checks have to say. If they could have avoided that, the solution you propose would be fine, but human nature is to turn every distinction into a symbol of merit.
- panarky 7y ago
  > Twitter has removed the blue check almost exclusively from public figures on the right Do you have a source for that or is it your opinion? Some of my friends and family are very quick to note that the overrepresentation of black and brown people in prison populations is not evidence of bias, because you have to look at who is committing the crimes. But when it comes to right-wing personalities getting suspended or banned from private platforms, the same people are very slow to comprehend the same logic.
  - busterarm 7y ago
    I'm not going to "citation needed" for stuff that was published as mainstream news. I wasn't espousing any particular party leaning (but if you need to know, I'm a progressive/lefty). This question is in bad faith.
    - panarky 7y ago
      Nah, I've seen the "mainstream news" and it doesn't say Twitter is unverifying mainstream conservatives while not touching mainstream liberals. Twitter banned those using the platform to organize Charlottesville violence and to engage in or promote harassment and violence. Unless you conflate sanctioning harassment and violence with sanctioning "the right", then I'm asking you to substantiate your claim.

dlivingston 7y ago

On an aside...maybe it’s just me, but being a journalist on Twitter and sharing your personal opinions / philosophies / politics seems like a bad idea to me. We trust journalists - the standard, non-opinion column ones - to be something of an impartial, truth-telling messenger on the state of the world. When I go on a journalist’s Twitter page and see that she’s a staunch Marxist or hardcore Randian libertarian, I can’t help but wonder if that strong bias has seeped into her articles...both in what she’s writing to me, and in what she’s omitting.

busterarm 7y ago
Trusting journalists in 2020.
blackflame7000 7y ago
"We trust journalists" - you might be wise to not do that blindly. Journalist get paid from somebody.
type0 7y ago
> I can’t help but wonder if that strong bias has seeped into her articles...both in what she’s writing to me, and in what she’s omitting. They would do that regardless, now at least you can find out their biases.
chipotle_coyote 7y ago
A lot of journalists cite pressure from their employers to be online and "engaged." I think it's probably a bad idea -- possibly in general, but particularly for journalists/columnists -- to say anything on Twitter that you wouldn't say in an an article or column. That doesn't necessarily preclude sharing opinions, philosophies, and politics, but it definitely entails a certain measure of restraint.

rhizome 7y ago

Maybe it's as simple as ex-TWTR ppl tending not to jump ship with their networks to Republican and conservative publications.

GaryNumanVevo 7y ago

I see a TON of small town news reporters who are verified and have less than 500 followers. Perhaps there's some selection bias here, not that "lefty journalists" are more verified, it's just that their posts are more visible through engagement, etc.