6 ms·

Having worked at a media firm, I find this very plausible. At one point I decided to take a look at my journalist coworkers' Twitter profiles. ~95% of the peo

Having worked at a media firm, I find this very plausible. At one point I decided to take a look at my journalist coworkers' Twitter profiles. ~95% of the people they were following were not only other journalists, but other journalists of similar, if not identical, political bent. This makes sense, of course, because people will always prefer to hear viewpoints that reinforce their own, but for journalists this is a problem because they're supposed to be providing information, yet they are especially subject to feedback loops created when they fail in attempting to understand viewpoints that aren't intuitive to them. Worse yet, extremism is almost always rewarded on platforms like Twitter, and because journalists are partly driven by a need for fame and brand recognition, they're encouraged to be openly biased. EDIT: I don't want to paint all journalists in a bad light. What I described just seemed common in my experience.

untog 6y ago
None of that is particularly surprising or alarming if you consider Twitter to be a networking tool, though. It seems like that's exactly what it is for many, including people in tech. You talk to people in your industry, exchange advice, possibly even look for a job. The assumption in the study is that journalists are also using Twitter as a source for their journalism but that isn't really substantiated anywhere. Yes, there's plenty of clickbait crap that recycles whatever the latest X is on social media, but in terms of actual original reporting? I'm not so convinced.
- Talanes 6y ago
  Purely anecdotal, but the couple of local journalists I follow on Twitter will directly ask for leads on things they are working, over Twitter.
- tolbish 6y ago
  Why would they need to substantiate that Twitter is used as a source for their journalism? That would be a common-sense assumption.
madeofpalk 6y ago
> but for journalists this is a problem because they're supposed to be providing information, I do not expect journalists to use their twitter timeline as the foundation of all their reporting.
- xkde 6y ago
  You would hope not, but given the number of stories these days that are just, “hey look at this Tweet!”, I don’t think we can expect that much. https://youtu.be/mpHiDsnqOSA https://youtu.be/mpHiDsnqOSA
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Seems plausible that the information journalists relay is a function of their network, and I don’t have a hard time believing that they are similarly selective about their non-Twitter networks. The degree of bias is certainly an interesting question, but it seems unlikely that it is “low”, especially given what we’ve observed from various antics at the NYT to the same farcical coverage of the Covington Catholic affair across our national media to the farcical coverage of the Damore memo by tech and other media to the Washington Post’s heartfelt eulogy of an ISIS leader and on and on. All signs point to high insularity and intolerance of other ideologies (by which I don’t mean extreme right wing ideologies but rather more moderate progressive or liberal ideologies, for example the attempts by other journalists to “cancel” progressive journalist Lee Fang who erred by interviewing a black man whose opinion wasn’t sufficiently aligned with the orthodoxy). There are many such events that come to my mind, and my perception is that they are increasing in both quantity and gravity; I’m certainly persuaded that more research is merited with respect to the dynamics of both traditional and social media. Maybe that research will correct me and in fact journalists are doing a great job; in that “worst case” scenario, I (and others skeptical of the state of the media) walk away with more trust in the media and our national divide closes a bit. EDIT: wow, that’s a lot of downvotes for what I thought was a metered, well-supported post. I wonder what objections people have to my appeal for more research on the subject? Do downvoters disagree with my perception about bias in the media? And if so how do we resolve this difference of perception if not with more research? What is so fearful about additional inquiry?
- bleepblorp 6y ago
dominotw 6y ago
> This makes sense, of course, because people will always prefer to hear viewpoints that reinforce their own They might just be keeping up with competition.
ideals 6y ago
I'm not a journalist, just a rando I don't follow right-wing types on Twitter or anywhere but I make a point to check foxnews and read the comments and click around on increasingly aggressive right-wing Twitter profiles and read their comments, along with traversing right-wing websites like Breitbart and ZeroHedge pretty regularly. If you looked at my profile it would also look like I only follow and listen to a small bubble. That's because I don't want their BS cluttering up my life and intruding when I don't want it. I choose when to let their ideologies into my life in a controlled manor, it works much better this way.
- rjkennedy98 6y ago
  This is even worse than not following people on the right. You are just seeking out the worst and most toxic media that will reinforce your view of the right. There are plenty of reasonable people that identify with the right (not necessarily Trump) such as Julius Krein and Ross Douthat and David Frum. Try to seek out the best of the other side instead.
vmception 6y ago
I saw a different study that said on Twitter right-leaning accounts also follow the left-leaning accounts, while left-leaning accounts do not follow the right-leaning accounts. This matches my experience in the bay area and progressive social media circles where one group has a trend of immediately blocking someone that isn't using the verbatim party line talking points. A "with us or against us" mentality, whether you are actually on the other side of the aisle or not.
- GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
  Do you mind linking the study? My google scholar searches didn't turn up anything
  - uncoder0 6y ago
    I'm not the person you're addressing but I seem to remember this pew research article that sort of fits the bill of what he's describing. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2012/03/12/social-networking-sites-and-politics/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2012/03/12/social-netwo...
    - GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
      Thanks! Unless I’m missing something this study doesn’t differentiate between left and right political content. However, it’s interesting how 75% said they have friends who post political content, but only 35% said they post it themselves
      - randallsquared 6y ago
        > it’s interesting how 75% said they have friends who post political content, but only 35% said they post it themselves Care to elaborate? I don't see why those numbers would be more than very loosely connected through the social graph?
        dmurray 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rch 6y ago
Twitter's algo seems to play a significant role by diminishing the reach of less active participants. I've started opening the list of people I'm following to find those I haven't seen in a while, or at all. Nine times out of ten there is recent content available that I'd consider superior to the political whinging that tends to dominate my default feed. I'm still interested in socially relevant topics, but I value variety as well.
52-6F-62 6y ago
Long before Twitter I'm sure like-minded journalists also spent more time together and had better professional and personal relationships (at least on an intellectual level) than they did with others. To follow your point: what does it say about journalists that don't use Twitter at all?

untog 6y ago

None of that is particularly surprising or alarming if you consider Twitter to be a networking tool, though. It seems like that's exactly what it is for many, including people in tech. You talk to people in your industry, exchange advice, possibly even look for a job. The assumption in the study is that journalists are also using Twitter as a source for their journalism but that isn't really substantiated anywhere. Yes, there's plenty of clickbait crap that recycles whatever the latest X is on social media, but in terms of actual original reporting? I'm not so convinced.

Talanes 6y ago
Purely anecdotal, but the couple of local journalists I follow on Twitter will directly ask for leads on things they are working, over Twitter.
tolbish 6y ago
Why would they need to substantiate that Twitter is used as a source for their journalism? That would be a common-sense assumption.

madeofpalk 6y ago

> but for journalists this is a problem because they're supposed to be providing information, I do not expect journalists to use their twitter timeline as the foundation of all their reporting.

xkde 6y ago
You would hope not, but given the number of stories these days that are just, “hey look at this Tweet!”, I don’t think we can expect that much. https://youtu.be/mpHiDsnqOSA https://youtu.be/mpHiDsnqOSA
throwaway894345 6y ago
Seems plausible that the information journalists relay is a function of their network, and I don’t have a hard time believing that they are similarly selective about their non-Twitter networks. The degree of bias is certainly an interesting question, but it seems unlikely that it is “low”, especially given what we’ve observed from various antics at the NYT to the same farcical coverage of the Covington Catholic affair across our national media to the farcical coverage of the Damore memo by tech and other media to the Washington Post’s heartfelt eulogy of an ISIS leader and on and on. All signs point to high insularity and intolerance of other ideologies (by which I don’t mean extreme right wing ideologies but rather more moderate progressive or liberal ideologies, for example the attempts by other journalists to “cancel” progressive journalist Lee Fang who erred by interviewing a black man whose opinion wasn’t sufficiently aligned with the orthodoxy). There are many such events that come to my mind, and my perception is that they are increasing in both quantity and gravity; I’m certainly persuaded that more research is merited with respect to the dynamics of both traditional and social media. Maybe that research will correct me and in fact journalists are doing a great job; in that “worst case” scenario, I (and others skeptical of the state of the media) walk away with more trust in the media and our national divide closes a bit. EDIT: wow, that’s a lot of downvotes for what I thought was a metered, well-supported post. I wonder what objections people have to my appeal for more research on the subject? Do downvoters disagree with my perception about bias in the media? And if so how do we resolve this difference of perception if not with more research? What is so fearful about additional inquiry?
bleepblorp 6y ago

dominotw 6y ago

> This makes sense, of course, because people will always prefer to hear viewpoints that reinforce their own They might just be keeping up with competition.

ideals 6y ago

I'm not a journalist, just a rando I don't follow right-wing types on Twitter or anywhere but I make a point to check foxnews and read the comments and click around on increasingly aggressive right-wing Twitter profiles and read their comments, along with traversing right-wing websites like Breitbart and ZeroHedge pretty regularly. If you looked at my profile it would also look like I only follow and listen to a small bubble. That's because I don't want their BS cluttering up my life and intruding when I don't want it. I choose when to let their ideologies into my life in a controlled manor, it works much better this way.

rjkennedy98 6y ago
This is even worse than not following people on the right. You are just seeking out the worst and most toxic media that will reinforce your view of the right. There are plenty of reasonable people that identify with the right (not necessarily Trump) such as Julius Krein and Ross Douthat and David Frum. Try to seek out the best of the other side instead.

vmception 6y ago

I saw a different study that said on Twitter right-leaning accounts also follow the left-leaning accounts, while left-leaning accounts do not follow the right-leaning accounts. This matches my experience in the bay area and progressive social media circles where one group has a trend of immediately blocking someone that isn't using the verbatim party line talking points. A "with us or against us" mentality, whether you are actually on the other side of the aisle or not.

GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
Do you mind linking the study? My google scholar searches didn't turn up anything
- uncoder0 6y ago
  I'm not the person you're addressing but I seem to remember this pew research article that sort of fits the bill of what he's describing. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2012/03/12/social-networking-sites-and-politics/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2012/03/12/social-netwo...
  - GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
    Thanks! Unless I’m missing something this study doesn’t differentiate between left and right political content. However, it’s interesting how 75% said they have friends who post political content, but only 35% said they post it themselves
    - randallsquared 6y ago
      > it’s interesting how 75% said they have friends who post political content, but only 35% said they post it themselves Care to elaborate? I don't see why those numbers would be more than very loosely connected through the social graph?
      - dmurray 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

rch 6y ago

Twitter's algo seems to play a significant role by diminishing the reach of less active participants. I've started opening the list of people I'm following to find those I haven't seen in a while, or at all. Nine times out of ten there is recent content available that I'd consider superior to the political whinging that tends to dominate my default feed. I'm still interested in socially relevant topics, but I value variety as well.

52-6F-62 6y ago

Long before Twitter I'm sure like-minded journalists also spent more time together and had better professional and personal relationships (at least on an intellectual level) than they did with others. To follow your point: what does it say about journalists that don't use Twitter at all?