Time magazine: “we don’t know how yet, but we’re gonna find a way to link the rise of fascism and avocado toast”
The article is largely good quality but what even is this:
“We couldn’t destroy the Taliban, but office work destroyed the Taliban,” said one Tiktoker, reviewing articles and quotes from the report.
It doesn’t even name the person. Just cherry picked some random quip from social media and pasted it into the body.
Editor: The article is great! All we need now is a quote from social media and we can publish.
Journalist: We haven’t been able to find anything suitable, everyone thinks this story is satire.
Editor: Then just post one yourself and then quote that! But don’t reference your name, that’ll be a dead giveaway.
I’ve been hating this since Twitter became a thing. I used to read BBC news articles for (seemingly) good quality reporting, and then they started quoting random twitter users. Like, who gives a fuck?
It always seemed strange to me as well. Who is this person, and why should I value their opinion?
Even worse when a “news” article is just embedding a bunch of Tweets from random people and calling it news.
Hell, there are even news articles only quoting Tweets.
And TV shows only re-streaming viral YT videos. I imagine these people just watch YT the whole day and call it work.
For me at least, “said” has a link to https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTR7mbL8g/
That link only takes me to the front page, but perhaps if someone has a tiktok account that goes to a video (a tik? Tok? Whatever it’s called).
