David von Drehle: “It is no surprise that Twitter addiction is rampant among journalists.”

From a David von Drehle column “Twitter is the crystal meth of newsrooms” in the Washington Post:

I saw the future of political reporting half a dozen years ago, and I’ve been hoping to unsee it ever since.

In the final week of August 2012, after Tropical Storm Isaac delivered a scouring rain to Florida’s Gulf Coast, an army of scribes and pundits wilted in the humid aftermath at the gates of  the Republican convention. A presidential nominating convention is not the best place to find political insights, but it’s not the worst, either. . . . (For instance, after noticing that Donald Trump was staging his 2016 convention as a mash-up of reality TV and professional wrestling, a reporter could be braced for the hyperbolic and improvisational melodrama of Trump’s presidency.)

But in the coolness of the press section of what was then known as the Tampa Bay Times Forum, I observed something I’d never seen in seven prior conventions. The seats were filled, but hardly anyone glanced at the stage or the delegates. My colleagues had their laptops opened to their TweetDecks. Side by side in the dim glow of their screens, they monitored each bon mot and burp of Twitter’s commentary on events. . . .

Too many journalists are these days under intense pressure to produce quick “takes” on the news to drive website traffic. Twitter offers the amphetamine hit that makes such pressure survivable. . . . .

What are these vulnerabilities? For one, many journalists are surprisingly shy. We chose a trade that involves watching and witnessing rather than risking and daring. For many of us, the most difficult part of the job is ringing the doorbell of a bereaved family, or prying into the opinions of unwelcoming strangers. Twitter has created a seductive universe in which the reactions of a virtual community are served up in neatly quotable bits without need for uncomfortable personal interactions.

For another, many journalists are these days under intense pressure to produce quick “takes” on the news to drive website traffic. Twitter offers the amphetamine hit that makes such pressure survivable. No reporter can go to the scene of a dozen events per day, observe what happens, interview those affected, sort the meaning from the dross and file a story. But Twitter offers an endless stream of faux events: fleeting sensations, momentary outrages, ersatz insights and provocative distortions. “News” nuggets roll by like the chocolates on Lucy’s conveyor belt.

A third vulnerability is our smart-aleck gene. I’m not sure why journalism exerts such a pull on kids with the sharpest wisecracks, but if you spend five minutes in a stadium press box or aboard a campaign bus, you’ll see those kids grown up. On Twitter, a perfect cynical comment or comeback can be savored and shared by thousands. Pre-Twitter, the same gem might have found only a paltry few listeners to enjoy it.

So it is no surprise that Twitter addiction is rampant among journalists. . . .

There’s a direct line from the TweetDecks of 2012 to the widespread failure of political journalism to understand the Trump campaign four years later. Too many of us covered Twitter’s reaction to Trump, instead of covering the ideas and impulses of the voters he was reaching. Whether by instinct or intention, Trump stoked the addiction by fueling Twitter with red meat and steroids.

Speak Your Mind

*