I think the assumption that journalists write controversial content for clicks is mostly wrong. I think they largely do it to assert influence on the narrative that makes up shared mainstream/tribe reality, something that neither blasé nor universally-derided work accomplishes
-
-
As motivations go, influencing the narrative may seem better than driving up pageviews, but it still means constantly needing to either discover or manufacture novel stories. And one of those is a lot easier to do than the other
Show this thread -
It's quite often the case that when a reporter gets a story "wrong," there never was any way to get it right; getting the story right would turn it into a non-story
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.