Right now I'm thinking about a certain type of journalist/media figure who scolds: "twitter isn't real life" meaning "the thing of vital importance that you all are aware of is not something most people are aware of or care about."
As if there is some moral fault in being aware.
As if there is some moral fault in being aware.
Right now I'm thinking about a certain type of journalist who looks at a critical mass of the population that doesn't care about something of vital importance, and decides that collective nonchalance is "real life," and not a failure of journalism's mandate to inform the public.
I mean, sure, "Twitter isn't real life" when it comes to Green Glewald's latest snippy beef with whatever other social media personality, or Jorts the cat, or whatever.
But when it comes to matters of public health, environment, social justice?
Maybe real life isn't real life.
But when it comes to matters of public health, environment, social justice?
Maybe real life isn't real life.
If social media has people aware of and discussing certain matters of vital importance ... and "real life" is the people who are either deliberately or lazily ignorant of these matters, which will affect them whether they care or not...
Maybe the "real world" is the problem.
Maybe the "real world" is the problem.
Either way, maybe if your ostensible job is informing the public, the fact the public doesn't know shit about fuck, and doesn't care about what little it does know, is the problem, rather than something to smugly point out to people who do know and care.
Also, Jorts rules and I mean no disrespect.
This is what I’m talking about:
https://twitter.com/breenewsome/status/1481081588473647106
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
