You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
We're witnessing a powerful feedback loop in the media: paint-by-numbers journalism sets a narrative, the lack of context and nuance leaves little for the audience to do but pick from the narratives offered, and then, having made a selection, punish sources that go off-narrativehttps://twitter.com/balajis/status/1170821709093470208 …
Why punish sources that go off-narrative? Because choosing narratives has become the default strategy for understanding the world. To offer conflicting narratives is to imply that you can't provide infallible understanding, and a readership expecting that will feel betrayed
Why would a readership expect infallible understanding...? What else would they expect, after a decade or two consuming information-as-fact with little deviation in classroom environments?
I know we're not supposed to tell journalists to learn to code, but it really might make for better journalists, because it's one of the few activities with an assumption-result cycle fast enough to force the stubborn human mind to see how wrong it is nearly all of the time
Has choosing narratives actually "become" the default? Was there a time when we did better? I've been operating from the premise that that's what humans do by default until they see (experientially) that it's an unhelpful strategy
Note I agree with your larger point and see how this could be nitpicky, just asking though because it changes how you'd solve the problem / make progress
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
