- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Time magazine: “we don’t know how yet, but we’re gonna find a way to link the rise of fascism and avocado toast”
Time magazine: “we don’t know how yet, but we’re gonna find a way to link the rise of fascism and avocado toast”
The article is largely good quality but what even is this:
It doesn’t even name the person. Just cherry picked some random quip from social media and pasted it into the body.
I’ve been hating this since Twitter became a thing. I used to read BBC news articles for (seemingly) good quality reporting, and then they started quoting random twitter users. Like, who gives a fuck?
Hell, there are even news articles only quoting Tweets.
And TV shows only re-streaming viral YT videos. I imagine these people just watch YT the whole day and call it work.
Living the dream, if you ask me. Just don’t mix it with serious news. “New political coalition formed! Twitter user rear_beads commented: ‘lol’”
One can view a show about humorous viral YouTube videos to be this generation’s America Funniest Home Videos.
Edit: Fix grammar
It always seemed strange to me as well. Who is this person, and why should I value their opinion?
Even worse when a “news” article is just embedding a bunch of Tweets from random people and calling it news.
Which the BBC has done. Awful.
Editor: The article is great! All we need now is a quote from social media and we can publish.
Journalist: We haven’t been able to find anything suitable, everyone thinks this story is satire.
Editor: Then just post one yourself and then quote that! But don’t reference your name, that’ll be a dead giveaway.
Hard to cite a GPT reference.
For me at least, “said” has a link to https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTR7mbL8g/
That link only takes me to the front page, but perhaps if someone has a tiktok account that goes to a video (a tik? Tok? Whatever it’s called).