2 Responses to “I’m Anti-Twitter; Part V”

  1. Jesse 20 April 2009 at 12:37 pm #

    Yeah, but the “professional journalists” are even more corrupt and owned than Kutcher is. The networks are owned by bigger corporations with the result being focused on making money – i.e. getting more advertisers on the program. Getting more advertisers means having better ratings. How do networks get better ratings? Have the most interesting headlines. Objectivity isn’t a requirement anymore, it’s just kind of nice if you show it every once in awhile.

    Is that news? Is that objectively reporting what’s going on in America? No, it’s having the most interesting headlines. Who cares if it’s fair or unbiased, the most people will watch it, so lets fire it up.

    The thing I can get behind is people reporting the truth. If social media and…ugh..Twitter gives people a chance to do that then yes, as much as I hate to say it – I’m all for that too.

    The day of someone going to college and learning how to do “teh news” is over. You learn how to report whatever your parent corporation guidelines lets you report, or whatever will get you the most ratings.

  2. The Gimcracker 20 April 2009 at 12:45 pm #

    That is true. News companies don’t care about the news, they just care about the ratings, so they will put up any news they want.

    However, it is a fallacy to say that since the current news broadcasting companies aren’t getting the job done, then Twitter is the way to go. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I think neither are right. An independent news company without an agenda that has the resources/connections to be able to report real news to us would be ideal.

    That being said, I agree with you because the amount I hate Twitter is eclipsed by the amount I despise the corruption in the media. It’s like complaining about the soundtrack to Tomb Raider The Movie and ignoring the bigger issue at hand: THE MOVIE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN MADE.

Leave a Reply