3 ms·
As the article says: journalists take social media for gospel. They're totally addicted to twitter. That's an important source for trends and vox populi for the
by tgv 3y ago
As the article says: journalists take social media for gospel. They're totally addicted to twitter. That's an important source for trends and vox populi for them, and that's where all the commotion about Musk's reign comes from (and from the people that the journalists follow, because they'll lose their influence, and thus power and what comes with it).
The majority reads what these journalists write. If it seems reasonable, they'll accept it. When they're browbeaten, they'll also accept it, but with a grudge. But don't forget that there are different political, religous and cultural leanings in all media, so the majority is not uniform. Silent they are, though.
- dfxm12 3y agoWhen news outlets cut budgets, sites like Twitter/Threads/FB are the only sources they can afford. Whereas before, they might get some time/money to do some real investigation, now they have to submit articles to get paid, and need to write articles on the cheap so they make out ahead. There are some outlets, like The Intercept, that are still doing great investigative work, but they get drowned out among the other options, which isn't surprising when so few people own so much of the most popular new outlets.
- ogou 3y agoJournalists are addicted to attribution. Before Twitter, they had to call people for quotes verifying or denying something. The tradition was 2 sources to verify. There was even a time that anonymous sources were frowned on. If they couldn't get them on the phone, they had to track them down and ask in person. That's why there are multiple scenes in "All the President's Men" where the reporters are knocking on doors at people's houses at night. All that is old school now and replaced by the quick drug-like hit of posting "so-and-so tweeted". It's enough to write about a post of some kind and not actually get comments or context from anybody else, because there always posts for "opponents say" or "advocates say". I was a web developer for a newspaper and knew they were doomed when they started writing articles about their own comments section. Implication and notoriety rule the day.
- oefrha 3y ago> Journalists are addicted to attribution. Having actually been the subject of news stories a few times (appearing in multiple papers each time), I doubt that. Journalists managed to shuffle quotes around people, e.g. putting my words in someone else’s mouth or someone else’s in mine, or creatively edited what I said and hence distorting it (published inside double quotes of course), even though I gave all of them a printed document of everything I said in the interview and more.
- ogou 3y agoYou're conflating attribution and accuracy. They found in you someone to attribute the statements to, but didn't do it accurately. Quoting someone is a special kind of deflection of responsibility. Same if it's a verbal quote or a tweet.
- soco 3y agoWas this happening in ye olden times before Twitter, or was caused by today's "journalism" at its best? (quotes are mine)
- oefrha 3y agoThe old times, before the make-a-clickbait-story-out-of-a-random-tweet-and-verify-nothing era, though two cases happened after the literal advent of Twitter.