Read on Twitter
There's a lot of blue tick journos who call Twitter a 'hellhole' and complain about being talked back to by opinionated critics.
I know some tweeps are abusive (sexist, etc) and they - and you, if you do it - should stop it.
However, many of us are critical but never abusive.
I know some tweeps are abusive (sexist, etc) and they - and you, if you do it - should stop it.
However, many of us are critical but never abusive.
The blue ticks prefer to pretend we don't exist. Many of them block us, very few will actually engage in debate or answer questions, no matter how polite we are.
They are fundamentally and wilfully misunderstanding what Twitter is for, while pretending to be free speech heroes.
They are fundamentally and wilfully misunderstanding what Twitter is for, while pretending to be free speech heroes.
The smarter ones know about *engagement* and claim to want more of it.
But what they want is a funny kind of engagement.
They want one-way engagement in which they get to tell us what they think and we politely acknowledge their brilliance.
It doesn't work like that, I'm afraid.
But what they want is a funny kind of engagement.
They want one-way engagement in which they get to tell us what they think and we politely acknowledge their brilliance.
It doesn't work like that, I'm afraid.
The BT journos are imbued with a worldview that places them at the centre of political life and political discourse.
They believe that what they blithely call *democracy* can't function without them playing the intermediary role between citizens and politicians.
They're wrong.
They believe that what they blithely call *democracy* can't function without them playing the intermediary role between citizens and politicians.
They're wrong.
Political democracy functions very poorly in a capitalist economy, but journalists are taught to ignore this glaring contradiction and treat politics as its own insular and independent world.
Politics is public, the economy is private, so to speak.
This is a mistaken view.
Politics is public, the economy is private, so to speak.
This is a mistaken view.
The BT journalist adheres to the ideology of The Fourth Estate which makes them the valiant defenders of democracy (they're not).
This ideology is very powerful in that it rises to almost mythic heights and it requires journos to think of themselves as public heroes.
It is ego.
This ideology is very powerful in that it rises to almost mythic heights and it requires journos to think of themselves as public heroes.
It is ego.
BT journos expect us to also buy in to their ideological myths and to dutifully role-play our gratitude for the wonderful job they do of holding power to account, defending the public interest and exposing corruption.
They're upset we're not more grateful and less critical.
They're upset we're not more grateful and less critical.
The problem is one of dialectics - contradiction, paradox, tension, change - and they don't understand how important this is.
Dialectics works on "the unity of opposites" in a process of "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" and in journalism it means nothing is static or stable.
Dialectics works on "the unity of opposites" in a process of "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" and in journalism it means nothing is static or stable.
Contradictions play out historically and under changing material circumstances.
The Fourth Estate model worked (to a degree) for most of the 20th Century when the news industry was relatively stable.
News was conservative and systemically compromised but there was no disruption
The Fourth Estate model worked (to a degree) for most of the 20th Century when the news industry was relatively stable.
News was conservative and systemically compromised but there was no disruption
Disruption is now the key driving force of rapid change in the news industry.
The economic model built on advertising is collapsing, audiences now talk around or over the once dominant news channels and public trust levels are rapidly dropping.
Outside of news, the world is chaos
The economic model built on advertising is collapsing, audiences now talk around or over the once dominant news channels and public trust levels are rapidly dropping.
Outside of news, the world is chaos
The explanations about the world crisis provided by the Fourth Estate no longer seem adequate to our needs.
Of course - thinking dialectically - we acknowledge some good work by journos, it's only fair we do that.
BUT
On the whole BT journos are clinging to their old ideas
Of course - thinking dialectically - we acknowledge some good work by journos, it's only fair we do that.
BUT
On the whole BT journos are clinging to their old ideas
To them the old certainties of Fourth Estate thinking are a haven of false consciousness that means they don't have to confront changing circumstances.
It's easier for them to blame us and accuse us of being rude than to face the reality of their fading glory.
They're stuck.
It's easier for them to blame us and accuse us of being rude than to face the reality of their fading glory.
They're stuck.
The BT response, refusing responsibility for mistaken "hot takes" and of not acknowledging their blatant bias - looking at the Baxendales and Uhlmanns (ore) - is a sullen rear-guard action and an admission of defeat.
The system-friendly worldview prevents them from understanding
The system-friendly worldview prevents them from understanding
Which begs the question...
If Twitter is so horrible for the BT journos, why do they stick around?
They're attention junkies and need their fix.
If Twitter is so horrible for the BT journos, why do they stick around?
They're attention junkies and need their fix.
