Part of Maggie Haberman’s experiences on Twitter is that readers rightly or wrongly project their perceptions of the Trump White House’s relationship with nation’s most influential newspaper on her.
That she’s a woman online adds another toxic layer. nyti.ms/2O5Pi9u?smid=n…
That she’s a woman online adds another toxic layer. nyti.ms/2O5Pi9u?smid=n…
Overlooked in her essay, Haberman recognizes Twitter as a valid and powerful journalistic tool - one that comes with a unique set of professional ethics and self-care needs.
This isn’t an indictment of the platform.
This isn’t an indictment of the platform.
Folks, it’s totally fair to criticize reporters for what they write. My tweet is less about Haberman than the rather banal observation that female reporters and White House correspondents encounter a particularly toxic climate in the Trump era.
Read the original tweet: “Rightly or wrongly,” one White House correspondent has become the lightning rod readers project all their views about the NYT’s relationship with Trump.
The reaction to that statement proves that observation correct.
The reaction to that statement proves that observation correct.
The more important observation here is that - in the controversy this essay engendered - it seems that this has been misinterpreted as an attack on Twitter as a valid and powerful journalistic tool.
1) The essay doesn’t say that.
2) Twitter is a valuable source of newsgathering.
1) The essay doesn’t say that.
2) Twitter is a valuable source of newsgathering.
