"Mostly, he seems to cite "twitter"/X... as if that's some authoritative source."
Clearly Dan is not interested in Truth at his blog. At best he's interested in his one of a billion Truths, without regard to whether or not his truth comports with reality.
To be clear the Truth is that I have NEVER "cited" Twitter as an "authoritative source". Not once.
What I have done is used the links embedded in various tweets as a path to other sources or I've posted a tweet from someone as an "authoritative source" regarding something they said or did.
For example, if I post a tweet from Biden's official Twitter account, I'm posting it because it is an accurate representation of what Biden has said or done. The medium of Twitter doesn't invalidate the message. Or if I link to something from the NYT Twitter account, it clearly is no different (in authority) than from the print edition.
For example, if a tweet contains a video of something or someone actually doing or saying something worth commenting on, I'll post the tweet solely for the embedded video. I just posted about Jon Stewart and a bit he did on late night TV. I could have posted any number of links to that video, all of which would have taken one to the video. The medium (Twitter, YouTube, FB, IG, etc) doesn't invalidate the content. Nor does it validate the content. It is, however, a convenient way to post links to video, news stories, and other things. I've been quite clear, repeatedly, that I post tweets only for their links to other sources, and for inconvenience.
It's interesting that Dan's commitment to "journalism" seems so rooted in the '80s when he took some JUCO classes, and not in the 21st century where Twitter is an outlet for journalism.
I understand that it's less about Truth than it is about enhancing feelings of superiority. I also understand that it's less about Truth than it is about coming up with an excuse to ignore something based on the medium it is conveyed it. As long as one can dismiss something for some superficial reason, one doesn't have to contend with the Truth or what's being communicated.
Finally, I'll note that Dan could just prove things wrong.
2 comments:
Or, to put it simply:
1. Is the message something with which Dan agrees or disagrees?
a) If the message is something with which Dan agrees, the site which presents the message doesn't matter.
b) If the message is something with which Dan disagrees, the site is the disparaged as unreliable.
2. The value of the site presenting any message is only as good as the message is in Dan's corrupt mind.
My point exactly. Dan focuses on the medium if it's beneficial in rejecting the message.
Post a Comment