Life long New Yorker. Used to work near Wall Street. All the top decision makers read the New York Times. They read it because it promises to give them the information they need.
Is it pro-capitalist? Yes. Does it give voice to right Wing folks? Yes.
It isn’t perfect, but it’s where I start when I need to know something.
Journalists and influencers are two very different things, friend. Any jackass with a YouTube channel or Instagram account can be an influencer. Journalism requires education, investigative and literary skill, and vetting.
No, journalists are influencers. You can make a distinction between types and quality of influencers (people with platforms and followers who they influence with the content they publish), but dont condemn all influencers.
No, journalists are not influencers. Influencers are just advertisers in human form. They’ll do and say anything if it pays them money. They share more in common with prostitutes than they do journalists.
I’m learning a new language right now and I find myself reflecting more and more about the strengths and weaknesses of English.
English is really good at a lot of things including humour and poetry. But it transforms overtime depending on region, culture, demographics, economics, marketing, and politics… which makes miscommunication happen ALL THE TIME.
I say this because you’re both right, and it’s frustrating because it limits our ability to have a meaningful conversation.
Perhaps this is an argument over semantics, rather than anything substantive.
When I say “influencer,” I’m referring to a class of people whose lives revolve around producing performative content on social media that does not meaningfully add to society.
We’re using the word “influencer” differently here. You’re using it the literal way - “one who influences.” The version I’m using is narrower in scope.
But if you insist on using your terminology, then I’ll refer to them not as “influencers” but rather “social media attention whores.” Does that make you feel better?
There are also influencers who care only about themselves, like those who like to stomp around in other people’s gardens without permission in order to get a “good photo” for their followers.
Its unfortunate if you dont support good journalists.
Most corporate media is crap. Its important to follow and support the work of good journalists.
Bring the down votes.
Life long New Yorker. Used to work near Wall Street. All the top decision makers read the New York Times. They read it because it promises to give them the information they need.
Is it pro-capitalist? Yes. Does it give voice to right Wing folks? Yes.
It isn’t perfect, but it’s where I start when I need to know something.
Fortunately the US has much better news outlets that aren’t puppets for corporations
Journalists and influencers are two very different things, friend. Any jackass with a YouTube channel or Instagram account can be an influencer. Journalism requires education, investigative and literary skill, and vetting.
No, journalists are influencers. You can make a distinction between types and quality of influencers (people with platforms and followers who they influence with the content they publish), but dont condemn all influencers.
No, journalists are not influencers. Influencers are just advertisers in human form. They’ll do and say anything if it pays them money. They share more in common with prostitutes than they do journalists.
Journalists are influencers.
We’ve had influencers for thousands of years. Jesus Christ was an influencer.
Journalists are truth tellers. Influencers are false-tellers. Yellow journalism is written by influencers, not journalists. See the distinction?
I’m learning a new language right now and I find myself reflecting more and more about the strengths and weaknesses of English.
English is really good at a lot of things including humour and poetry. But it transforms overtime depending on region, culture, demographics, economics, marketing, and politics… which makes miscommunication happen ALL THE TIME.
I say this because you’re both right, and it’s frustrating because it limits our ability to have a meaningful conversation.
If you want to look at a fun language that relies far more heavily on context than English, search for Toki Pona. It’s a neat “toy” language!
Perhaps this is an argument over semantics, rather than anything substantive.
When I say “influencer,” I’m referring to a class of people whose lives revolve around producing performative content on social media that does not meaningfully add to society.
Journalists are influencers.
We’ve had influencers for thousands of years. Jesus Christ was an influencer.
We’re using the word “influencer” differently here. You’re using it the literal way - “one who influences.” The version I’m using is narrower in scope.
But if you insist on using your terminology, then I’ll refer to them not as “influencers” but rather “social media attention whores.” Does that make you feel better?
Sure. Or you can say “bad influencers” or “the influencers who spread misinformation”
There are also influencers who care only about themselves, like those who like to stomp around in other people’s gardens without permission in order to get a “good photo” for their followers.
OK, so “asshole influencers”
But I dont understand how that would influence anyone.