4 ms·

Reposting tweets is not valid journalism. For that matter, including tweets from random people in reaction to a news event is also not valid journalism either.

Reposting tweets is not valid journalism. For that matter, including tweets from random people in reaction to a news event is also not valid journalism either. I don't care what muffycat1974 on Twitter has to say about the Iran nuclear deal, unless muffycat1974 is the Secretary of State.

fixxer 11y ago
By that same token, who cares what "billyhoffman" has to say?
- lsniddy 11y ago
  those of us reading the top comments on a forum?
- billyhoffman 11y ago
  You probably shouldn't, because I'm often wrong and frequently drunk :-) In seriousness though, when a news story is breaking, I'd like the news website to provide meaningful commentary from educated and informed people who can contribute to the understanding of the event. I don't care about the lay persons opinion when I'm reading a New York Times story about a world event. I want to hear for someone knowledgeable. A discussion site like HN is a completely different context with different expectations. I'm coming here for everyone's thoughts.
  - fixxer 11y ago
    With regard to meaningful commentary, that is a double edged sword. What you call meaning, I might call bias. Someone you call knowledgeable, I might call a shill. And vice versa. I've been thinking about data driven news for years now (I'm so fucking sick of Fox, MSNBC, et al.). Back to twitter, I actually do like the impact of 140 characters on how it compresses information. I would group the OP's article in with a first-person editorial, not journalism. I still read it and I think it merits follow up.
    - marrs 11y ago
      I can see how someone could be comfortable with the quality of today's journalism in the sense that at least it's obviously bullshit. The trouble is that this means we're out of practice when we have to assess what appears to be real news.
- teddyuk 11y ago
  This is a page of user generated content, wired isn't. I have seen it on the bbc website as well really poor.
Bartweiss 11y ago
I have a passionate hatred for the practice of replacing informed journalism with vox pop content. The point of following the news on subtle issues is to get better information than I can pull out of my own head, and hearing "what people are saying about this" doesn't offer that. The ability to replace a call to an expert with a twitter search has done serious damage to local news (not that it was much good to start with), and it's increasingly spilling into sources like Wired. As an aside, I really hope muffycat1974 is the Secretary of State.
- leephillips 11y ago
  Editors at the Washington Post called this kind of story a "AAA" assignment, meaning that a reporter was tasked to "Ask Any Asshole". This was long before Twitter, etc. They would actually stop random people on the street and ask their opinions.
  - marrs 11y ago
    LOL. I'm guessing the irony of that title is intended
vonklaus 11y ago
I reckon John Kerry's anonymous twitter account is Muffycat1974.

fixxer 11y ago

By that same token, who cares what "billyhoffman" has to say?

lsniddy 11y ago
those of us reading the top comments on a forum?
billyhoffman 11y ago
You probably shouldn't, because I'm often wrong and frequently drunk :-) In seriousness though, when a news story is breaking, I'd like the news website to provide meaningful commentary from educated and informed people who can contribute to the understanding of the event. I don't care about the lay persons opinion when I'm reading a New York Times story about a world event. I want to hear for someone knowledgeable. A discussion site like HN is a completely different context with different expectations. I'm coming here for everyone's thoughts.
- fixxer 11y ago
  With regard to meaningful commentary, that is a double edged sword. What you call meaning, I might call bias. Someone you call knowledgeable, I might call a shill. And vice versa. I've been thinking about data driven news for years now (I'm so fucking sick of Fox, MSNBC, et al.). Back to twitter, I actually do like the impact of 140 characters on how it compresses information. I would group the OP's article in with a first-person editorial, not journalism. I still read it and I think it merits follow up.
  - marrs 11y ago
    I can see how someone could be comfortable with the quality of today's journalism in the sense that at least it's obviously bullshit. The trouble is that this means we're out of practice when we have to assess what appears to be real news.
teddyuk 11y ago
This is a page of user generated content, wired isn't. I have seen it on the bbc website as well really poor.

Bartweiss 11y ago

I have a passionate hatred for the practice of replacing informed journalism with vox pop content. The point of following the news on subtle issues is to get better information than I can pull out of my own head, and hearing "what people are saying about this" doesn't offer that. The ability to replace a call to an expert with a twitter search has done serious damage to local news (not that it was much good to start with), and it's increasingly spilling into sources like Wired. As an aside, I really hope muffycat1974 is the Secretary of State.

leephillips 11y ago
Editors at the Washington Post called this kind of story a "AAA" assignment, meaning that a reporter was tasked to "Ask Any Asshole". This was long before Twitter, etc. They would actually stop random people on the street and ask their opinions.
- marrs 11y ago
  LOL. I'm guessing the irony of that title is intended

vonklaus 11y ago

I reckon John Kerry's anonymous twitter account is Muffycat1974.