Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
If depends on the poster. If it's just a random, I would be inclined to agree with you. If it's a reputable journalist - as in this instance - I wouldn't. To me, it's more rhe person than the platform.
|
But you yourself just acknowledged that the platform’s limited character space causes problems. That being the case, what’s prompting reputable people to keep struggling with it, if it’s inadequate as a means of communicating their expertise?
I contend that with Twatter, even if you’re a reputable journalist, it’s about being seen and esteemed by your peer group rather than the detail of what you want to say. And if the primary purpose of a communication is to be seen and esteemed by the “right” people rather than the serious examination of ideas, then that communication’s seriousness as a means of discussing ideas is still suspect.
In short … I stand by my opinion of Twatter. If something is worth saying on its own merit, rather than as a means of looking good in front of your mates, then say it somewhere else. If you’re a senior staffer at the FT for example, you could try using that platform.