I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure how well this plays out in practice. I think there's some tension between Josh's theory of why Twitter is bad for news and the message that'd be sent by a circumstantially Musk-related pullout.
Saying "we're leaving because of Elon's arbitrary and capricious rule" makes it sound like the paper …
I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure how well this plays out in practice. I think there's some tension between Josh's theory of why Twitter is bad for news and the message that'd be sent by a circumstantially Musk-related pullout.
Saying "we're leaving because of Elon's arbitrary and capricious rule" makes it sound like the paper is affirming, not repudiating, the way their newsroom was interacting with Twitter before Musk got involved and ruined everything. If you want reporters to hear the message that introducing Twitter-style attitudinizing into their approach to covering political stories is a bad thing, then you actually *have to say that.* And, seeing as the longstanding fact of its manifestly being a bad thing hasn't motivated editors to say so yet, I'm sadly doubtful that this changes anything on that front.
I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure how well this plays out in practice. I think there's some tension between Josh's theory of why Twitter is bad for news and the message that'd be sent by a circumstantially Musk-related pullout.
Saying "we're leaving because of Elon's arbitrary and capricious rule" makes it sound like the paper is affirming, not repudiating, the way their newsroom was interacting with Twitter before Musk got involved and ruined everything. If you want reporters to hear the message that introducing Twitter-style attitudinizing into their approach to covering political stories is a bad thing, then you actually *have to say that.* And, seeing as the longstanding fact of its manifestly being a bad thing hasn't motivated editors to say so yet, I'm sadly doubtful that this changes anything on that front.