stw2022
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2021
- Messages
- 3,687
There are good journalists and poor journalists. People who make stuff up and people with genuine sources. A new type of journalist has emerged thanks to Twitter and some of them get rightly mocked while others get bizarre pseudo-celebrity status. I'm talking about guys that leap on stories nearly always broke by good journalists and pile on with fairly innocuous, yet not unprovable, trivia that makes them look in the know.
A reputable reporter may for example Tweet that club A is thinking of signing player B. These new 'Twitter journalists'(not necessarily journalists that are only on Twitter but who mainly derive their reputation from the platform) then jump in with stuff like:
'Contacts ongoing, 60% chance. Still issues with agent'
and
'Close to happening. Not confirmed but intent on all sides to make it happen'
It adds nothing to the story. It isn't anything that can't be made up. It isn't something that isn't true with 99% of all transfers. Yet the Twitter journo has effectively hijacked the story. He'll Tweet about it 8 times each day, adding nothing new but repeating 'may happen, may not, club are hopeful' and variations of it. If the player signs he's a genius. "Reliable". If he doesn't? Well, he always said there was a chance it wouldn't happen, so he still knows what he's talking about IMO.
As I said I don't want to name names but there's a very prominent 'reliable journalist' who seems to have gained a reputation here especially for doing precisely this. Last night when the board meeting was called, a story others led on, he was immediately ahead of it by claiming to know that the board was split - before any meeting happened or news had leaked from it. The board meeting as we now know concluded our manager was to go. But it was another example of jumping on a story, adding info that couldn't be disproven, to make it seem as if he had the inside scoop. Tweeting 30 times a day because he's noticing an increase in his engagement/mentions adding nothing to the story except 'sources say Ed Woodward ate crisps' level of insight if we're actually breaking it down, and he gets reputation of being a sage of knowledge.
I'm not saying he's the only one but there are a large group of people who might well be decent, credible journaists in their own right, who gain reputation and followers through Twitter by doing exactly this.
A reputable reporter may for example Tweet that club A is thinking of signing player B. These new 'Twitter journalists'(not necessarily journalists that are only on Twitter but who mainly derive their reputation from the platform) then jump in with stuff like:
'Contacts ongoing, 60% chance. Still issues with agent'
and
'Close to happening. Not confirmed but intent on all sides to make it happen'
It adds nothing to the story. It isn't anything that can't be made up. It isn't something that isn't true with 99% of all transfers. Yet the Twitter journo has effectively hijacked the story. He'll Tweet about it 8 times each day, adding nothing new but repeating 'may happen, may not, club are hopeful' and variations of it. If the player signs he's a genius. "Reliable". If he doesn't? Well, he always said there was a chance it wouldn't happen, so he still knows what he's talking about IMO.
As I said I don't want to name names but there's a very prominent 'reliable journalist' who seems to have gained a reputation here especially for doing precisely this. Last night when the board meeting was called, a story others led on, he was immediately ahead of it by claiming to know that the board was split - before any meeting happened or news had leaked from it. The board meeting as we now know concluded our manager was to go. But it was another example of jumping on a story, adding info that couldn't be disproven, to make it seem as if he had the inside scoop. Tweeting 30 times a day because he's noticing an increase in his engagement/mentions adding nothing to the story except 'sources say Ed Woodward ate crisps' level of insight if we're actually breaking it down, and he gets reputation of being a sage of knowledge.
I'm not saying he's the only one but there are a large group of people who might well be decent, credible journaists in their own right, who gain reputation and followers through Twitter by doing exactly this.