Twitter Isn't a News Source. Ever.

This is what happens when journalism uses Twitter for its source material. It's no longer journalism.

Before you start gnashing teeth, know right away that the entire Boycott Jurassic World/"Pakisaurus" racism campaign was not real. I repeat, it was not real. It was not intended to be taken seriously. It was a joke. But here, from a "serious news" source (expect a lot of quotations around words in this post just to lay on the sarcasm with regard to how loosely definitions are followed in something as important as real and honest journalism), is how it was "reported."



http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/jurassic-worlds-unintentionally-very-racist-line-is-stunning-audiences-10328121.html

Seeing this article before doing any other research on it, I have to admit my blood started boiling as well, and I initially took to Twitter to blast any news media outlet that was reporting on it, but now I'm laughing at just how easily the reaction crawled out of my woodwork when something like this comes along. I saw a few cross linked posts from a couple of Facebook friends commenting on it yesterday, and I would not have mentioned it at all if I had seen a single comment that revealed the truth. Instead, all I saw was outrage at the Independent's "reporting" and taking it just as seriously as the Independent "reported" it DESPITE THE FACT THAT FACEBOOK HAD A LINK BENEATH THIS ARTICLE THAT WENT DIRECTLY TO THE ORIGINAL BOYCOTT VIDEO AS AN ADDITIONAL MEDIA SOURCE, so it remained on my mind. You'll notice the name Guzzy Bear as one of the Twitter/YouTube video sources of this article, but the author apparently did not bother to research the boycott video's origin whatsoever. After seeing the video myself, I don't think it's even possible the Independent article's author looked at the video at all. Guzzy Bear is a comedian, and the only reason this "news article" exists at all is because Guzzy Bear made the whole dinosaur racism thing up himself (hilariously, in my opinion), and he and his cameraman couldn't even keep a straight face while they did it. Don't take my word for it. Look at the video yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd4ygI0GHV8&feature=youtu.be

The Independent clearly didn't get the joke and proved comedian Guzzy Bear's point quite nicely when they took the bait. Notice I don't mention the author's name. Why bother? He wrote it, but someone above him also had to approve it. As far as I am concerned, it goes right to the top, and I doubt they will retract it. It may deservedly fall under the radar compared to other pressing news, but it was nonetheless reported as news. A news organization shouldn't have to be told about putting credibility on shaky ground (again, perfect world, textbook definition), but I just have to point out that this "article" was posted on the same day that this same "serious news" site was reporting on the horrible events in Charleston. As I type this, Charleston remains their cover story, and that issue is a hell of a lot more important than this fat, baldheaded loser sitting here giving my unimportant opinion on how a "journalist" thinks there is a dinosaur racism conspiracy. But at least I know where I stand, and people that don't stand for anything will fall for everything.




The "no longer journalism" thing goes for every single news outlet I unwittingly glance at in my local area that thinks it's a service to the public to be reading Twitter posts for every news story, holding Twitter opinion polls and posting a Twitter crawl along the bottom of the screen during reports (I speak specifically of local network news shows, but of course the influence of 24-hour news channels is obvious). We're not reporters, we're not news-makers, and the local news is the last place any of us need our fifteen seconds of Twitter fame. We're the uninformed public waiting to be informed (and to any media conspiracy friends out there reading this, I'm speaking perfect world, textbook definition journalism here, the way it is supposed to be delivered, so please don't get the hair on the back of your neck standing on end). Do your job, report the news objectively, and stop defeating your objectivity by asking us our opinion about it on your show DURING your show or, even worse in the case of The Independent, having the temerity to think our opinions on Twitter alone were enough for a news story. Sometimes I feel like I'm going against a few of my beliefs to use Twitter at all, but the important thing is that I remind myself not to misuse it.

This "article" on The Independent and, yes, even my blog post here, are just pieces of proof that we, the people at large in social media, are usually either spouting reactionary emotional gibberish about a subject our brain has not had ample time or appropriate information to process yet... or we've had ample time and are trying to find humor in it (+/- 2% in the calculation for people with no sense of humor). But then why am I sitting here bothering with this at 3AM (already after 4AM as I finish) instead of being asleep in my bed? Maybe I just wanted to remind myself I still have a sense of humor and a brain, and that I can step back, look for a little more information on something, and not react to it like I just stubbed my toe. It probably wasn't even worth the full hour and change I spent writing this, but I went ahead anyway. But seriously, that using Twitter on the news thing really gets to me... Good night.