Twitter is a Troll Scroll that hates journalists? You don't say, mainstream news media!

If it weren't for Matt Drudge, no one would bother with looking at articles about journalism. He is one of the few that actually remembers when they were still a thing, and throws a pity links.

The level of obliviousness in those articles is truly remarkable to the point that it should be a law that the entire profession be forced to take selfies with dunce caps.

The one from Neiman Lab is one for the books:

The universe of people trying to deceive journalists keeps expanding, and newsrooms aren’t ready

No, sillies: it has always been the same. You just kept falling for it like a bunch of sheltered rubes. I did write the book about it way back in 2005.

dbi-2.jpg

AI is not the big threat the article is proclaiming it to be.

If journalists were actually doing their jobs and not cribbing from processed and canned sources, such as PR, this would not exactly be a problem.

If you are in the middle of action among your fellow human beings, you are seeing reality up close.

This article is mere attempt at puffing: giving a likely story about how hard journalists are trying to verify information, which is patent malarky because the verification methods they are trying to shill here don't actually work, which is what the article is actually saying.

If you did not bother to verify in the flesh sources, you aren't going to do any better with AI-generated images.

This is a mere Computers Are Scary propaganda piece to make it seem as if what is left of newsrooms are feverishly working to get facts to news consumers the way they pretended they were getting information on the front lines of wars when they were getting it from PR firms.

It is the same old con job, just a different angle.

But journalists were never ones to keep up with the times they cover.

This article from the Hill is another example of the profession's thickness:

Media figures lament toxic Twitter

Twitter toxic? You don't say!

It's a Troll Scroll. Nothing else. It behaves the same way journalists did when they had completely control of the communications channels because there are no checks or balances to keep people civilized or accountable.

Nor are people forced to confront their own biases, which are nothing more than rigs used so people do not have to confront their own nincompoopity.

But those sentiments were always there. It's just before people would say it under their breath, and now they can say it in public and think it means something, especially if someone backs down or retreats.

I remember having to work in a newsroom writing stories for an anchor to read. Some of the stories were silly and not up to me. I got assigned it, like this one.

20180719_110722.jpg

Don't blame me. Mind you, I wrote serious stories, too.

And also those trendy benign ones that didn't matter.

Or so you'd think.

I did this one, and it was right off the wire.

20180719_110744-1.jpg

In no way did the piece say OJ Simpson was guilty or innocent. You don't say anything in the midst of a court case. It is the reason you always hear "allegedly" until the person is convicted or found not guilty, and then you move on.

Except one angry person called the newsroom absolutely insistent that the anchor who read that said that Simpson was guilty.

No. Not at all. The wire story never implied it. I never implied it. The anchor read the script verbatim and never implied it.

As in, no hint of it.

But the irate caller heard things never said, and when the anchor offered to send a video of that actual newscast, the caller said that it would be altered.

No, that would have cost too much money, and when management counted the seconds their staff used their company-issued cell phones, they'd never go for that.

It was a misinterpretation of reality. Period.

Back then, that caller had no way of airing that mistaken perception to the public.

With Twitter, he could air any paranoid conspiracy theory with impunity, and become emboldened with like-minded followers who think they have strength in numbers. They don't have prove their misperceptions are true.

It is enough that they have a public forum.

The way journalism once was given free reign to believe their misperceptions were reality just because they put them out in a public forum.

True verification methods do not actually exist.

They never have for the profession, and the disjointed half-baked methods show they never will.

It's too late for that profession, anyway.

A mention here or there from Drudge doesn't mean a thing.

That Twitter hates journalism should not be surprising. Those on the Troll Scroll believe they have power and control, and aren't going to let go of their illusions.

Should someone snub their nose at the puritanical disapproval and gives the trolls something to talk about happily, the power begins to vanish.

Because that's what happened to journalism.

And Twitter's fate will be no different...