3 ms·

> One of the absolute laziest ways to write a "news" article is the "here are a list of things people tweeted about this topic" compilation. It's definitely le

by ardy42 6y ago

> One of the absolute laziest ways to write a "news" article is the "here are a list of things people tweeted about this topic" compilation. It's definitely less work that investigative journalism, but to the extent that twitter is influential, it's a topic that should be covered. IMHO, the media has (at least) two important jobs: 1) conduct novel investigations and 2) summarize the firehose of events and ideas into a form concise enough for someone to read on a daily/weekly basis. "What people are saying on social media" falls squarely into the second category.

alex_c 6y ago
I very very strongly reject the idea that "What people are saying on social media" is worth summarizing or covering by the media. I can list many reasons, the top few would be: 1. It is too easy to game "what people are saying" on social media 2. Loudest voices / most extreme positions get picked up, amplified, and passed off as "what people are saying" 3. It is too easy / predictable to game what kind of messages the media chooses to summarize 4. None of it matters (see my original post about what people say vs. what people do) If an idea is worth discussing, it is worth discussing regardless of its source (social media or otherwise). Conversely, and I know this is open for debate, but Twitter is not a great medium for discussing ideas. Social media regularly reminds me of the Douglas Adams quote: “The story so far: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.” That is, on average, what people are saying on social media. It is not worth summarizing and covering.
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
Your #2, summarizing, isn't what I usually see in these "here's what people are saying on Twitter" stories. The valuable version that you're talking about would have to include things like polls or something, saying "20% of people agree with this idea, 5% agree with this other idea, etc." Instead, these stories just say here's some tweets that are really edgy/funny/gotchas/something I agree with."
- ardy42 6y ago
  > The valuable version that you're talking about would have to include things like polls or something, saying "20% of people agree with this idea, 5% agree with this other idea, etc." I disagree that would be "the valuable version." That's just "the more quantified" version. A music critic's list of the 100 best songs of 2020 is not inferior to Billboard's list of the 100 most popular songs of 2020 as determined by quantified data. Twitter is a cultural phenomenon, and its milieu(s) and output aren't completely unworthy of journalistic attention. That's not to say it's a top shelf subject, but the "news" properly covers all kinds of similar things, and some, like sports for instance, have even less value.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
    It's not the quantification that makes it important, it's that it's being put into context. When you see a list of twenty tweets holding the same viewpoint, the main question is whether they are representative (and of whom are they representative). Whether you say "70%" or just "most people," it's the same value that's missing usually. The quantification doesn't matter. It's the difference between a music critic choosing the 100 best songs (fine, because it's a person's own opinion presented honestly) versus a music critic saying they're just going with the popular consensus while cherry picking tweets that happen to pick the 100 they would have chosen (bad, because the tweets aren't put into context). Or like a traditional paper looking for a scientist who will say something exciting/sensational in a particular direction, then presenting it as scientific consensus. You can find a group saying anything on twitter. That means that the fact that some particular thing exists on it is useless.
marcus_holmes 6y ago
> ...to the extent that twitter is influential, it's a topic that should be covered. This is circular reasoning. It's only influential because journalists cover it. And they only cover it because "it's influential". Journalists don't cover Social Media. They cover Twitter. They ignore Reddit, Imgur, Tumblr, etc. Those are all social media with approximately the same user base as Twitter (Reddit probably has more). But totally ignored by print journos.

by ardy42 6y ago

alex_c 6y ago

I very very strongly reject the idea that "What people are saying on social media" is worth summarizing or covering by the media. I can list many reasons, the top few would be: 1. It is too easy to game "what people are saying" on social media 2. Loudest voices / most extreme positions get picked up, amplified, and passed off as "what people are saying" 3. It is too easy / predictable to game what kind of messages the media chooses to summarize 4. None of it matters (see my original post about what people say vs. what people do) If an idea is worth discussing, it is worth discussing regardless of its source (social media or otherwise). Conversely, and I know this is open for debate, but Twitter is not a great medium for discussing ideas. Social media regularly reminds me of the Douglas Adams quote: “The story so far: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.” That is, on average, what people are saying on social media. It is not worth summarizing and covering.

6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago

Your #2, summarizing, isn't what I usually see in these "here's what people are saying on Twitter" stories. The valuable version that you're talking about would have to include things like polls or something, saying "20% of people agree with this idea, 5% agree with this other idea, etc." Instead, these stories just say here's some tweets that are really edgy/funny/gotchas/something I agree with."

ardy42 6y ago
> The valuable version that you're talking about would have to include things like polls or something, saying "20% of people agree with this idea, 5% agree with this other idea, etc." I disagree that would be "the valuable version." That's just "the more quantified" version. A music critic's list of the 100 best songs of 2020 is not inferior to Billboard's list of the 100 most popular songs of 2020 as determined by quantified data. Twitter is a cultural phenomenon, and its milieu(s) and output aren't completely unworthy of journalistic attention. That's not to say it's a top shelf subject, but the "news" properly covers all kinds of similar things, and some, like sports for instance, have even less value.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
  It's not the quantification that makes it important, it's that it's being put into context. When you see a list of twenty tweets holding the same viewpoint, the main question is whether they are representative (and of whom are they representative). Whether you say "70%" or just "most people," it's the same value that's missing usually. The quantification doesn't matter. It's the difference between a music critic choosing the 100 best songs (fine, because it's a person's own opinion presented honestly) versus a music critic saying they're just going with the popular consensus while cherry picking tweets that happen to pick the 100 they would have chosen (bad, because the tweets aren't put into context). Or like a traditional paper looking for a scientist who will say something exciting/sensational in a particular direction, then presenting it as scientific consensus. You can find a group saying anything on twitter. That means that the fact that some particular thing exists on it is useless.

marcus_holmes 6y ago

> ...to the extent that twitter is influential, it's a topic that should be covered. This is circular reasoning. It's only influential because journalists cover it. And they only cover it because "it's influential". Journalists don't cover Social Media. They cover Twitter. They ignore Reddit, Imgur, Tumblr, etc. Those are all social media with approximately the same user base as Twitter (Reddit probably has more). But totally ignored by print journos.