3 ms·

If those 20-somethings are journalists, yes. I understood and gave my perspective. The irony is that these writers/journalists are writing about news that matte

If those 20-somethings are journalists, yes. I understood and gave my perspective. The irony is that these writers/journalists are writing about news that matters to them that they hear from TikTok.

saghm 3y ago
I'm having trouble figuring out what you're trying to say about journalists with regards to TikTok being used as a source by journalists, so I've re-read through this comment chain. First, you said: > Even reporters are getting their “source” from “I heard it on TikTok” When asked what your source was for this, you said: > Ask any 20-something where they get their news. Sure some are getting it from legit sources like NYTimes or WashPost or the like but a lot are getting it through their feeds on TikTok. Then in response to musing about the fact that it sounded like you got this info from the very people you were claiming only consumed inaccurate news, you said: > If those 20-somethings are journalists, yes. I understood and gave my perspective. As best I can tell, you're claiming that there are 20-something year old journalists reporting using TikTok as a source, and you've concluded this based on the fact that 1) there are 20-something year old journalists who exist and 2) "a lot" of 20-something year olds use TikTok for news and not publications like the New York Times or Washington Post. This seems like a pretty dubious inference; it implicitly assumes that not only are these journalists part of the group using TikTok exclusively for news, but that they're also writing stories using that as their source. I don't see why you couldn't just as easily assume that the 20-something year old journalists are part of the group that use the New York Times or Washington Post, or that they use TikTok for news but don't use it as the source for the news they write. You complained about "wars are raging, people are fighting, and all while making cute videos of cats while spreading 3rd grade history plausibilities" and "propaganda is being spread on there, fueling hate crimes and more", and I can't even tell if you think that TikTok is responsible for these major world problems as well as being a place that cat videos are posted or if you're angry that younger people are choosing to engage with TikTok instead of reading about those problems in more traditional news sources, despite several attempts at clarification on your part. To be blunt, this comes across as pretty unhinged.
rsynnott 3y ago
This... all sounds like it's something that you're imagining, to be honest. To be clear, journalists, except perhaps at the worst rags (Daily Mail and similar) are _not_ single-sourcing stories from TikTok. They may be using TikTok as _a_ source, but there'd generally be corroboration. Like, a lot of the job of journalists has always been taking extremely unreliable sources (before social media it was "I heard it down the pub" or "weirdo calls into tip line" or whatever) and trying to corroborate them; of course nine times out of ten it's bullshit, but it's not always, and having more of these sorts of unreliable sources is arguably quite _good_ for journalism. If you take the extreme case where there was no social media, no pubs, no tip lines, then journalists would be mostly in the business of rewriting press releases.

If those 20-somethings are journalists, yes. I understood and gave my perspective. The irony is that these writers/journalists are writing about news that matters to them that they hear from TikTok.

saghm 3y ago

I'm having trouble figuring out what you're trying to say about journalists with regards to TikTok being used as a source by journalists, so I've re-read through this comment chain. First, you said: > Even reporters are getting their “source” from “I heard it on TikTok” When asked what your source was for this, you said: > Ask any 20-something where they get their news. Sure some are getting it from legit sources like NYTimes or WashPost or the like but a lot are getting it through their feeds on TikTok. Then in response to musing about the fact that it sounded like you got this info from the very people you were claiming only consumed inaccurate news, you said: > If those 20-somethings are journalists, yes. I understood and gave my perspective. As best I can tell, you're claiming that there are 20-something year old journalists reporting using TikTok as a source, and you've concluded this based on the fact that 1) there are 20-something year old journalists who exist and 2) "a lot" of 20-something year olds use TikTok for news and not publications like the New York Times or Washington Post. This seems like a pretty dubious inference; it implicitly assumes that not only are these journalists part of the group using TikTok exclusively for news, but that they're also writing stories using that as their source. I don't see why you couldn't just as easily assume that the 20-something year old journalists are part of the group that use the New York Times or Washington Post, or that they use TikTok for news but don't use it as the source for the news they write. You complained about "wars are raging, people are fighting, and all while making cute videos of cats while spreading 3rd grade history plausibilities" and "propaganda is being spread on there, fueling hate crimes and more", and I can't even tell if you think that TikTok is responsible for these major world problems as well as being a place that cat videos are posted or if you're angry that younger people are choosing to engage with TikTok instead of reading about those problems in more traditional news sources, despite several attempts at clarification on your part. To be blunt, this comes across as pretty unhinged.

rsynnott 3y ago

This... all sounds like it's something that you're imagining, to be honest. To be clear, journalists, except perhaps at the worst rags (Daily Mail and similar) are _not_ single-sourcing stories from TikTok. They may be using TikTok as _a_ source, but there'd generally be corroboration. Like, a lot of the job of journalists has always been taking extremely unreliable sources (before social media it was "I heard it down the pub" or "weirdo calls into tip line" or whatever) and trying to corroborate them; of course nine times out of ten it's bullshit, but it's not always, and having more of these sorts of unreliable sources is arguably quite _good_ for journalism. If you take the extreme case where there was no social media, no pubs, no tip lines, then journalists would be mostly in the business of rewriting press releases.