How I Got Crazy on Twitter • RESPECT

The New York Times is changing its approach to Twitter. So far, journalists have been pushed to be as active as possible. Now publishers are asking the opposite. It is said that this does not have very positive effects, journalists should mainly focus on work, and they also become the target of attacks on the networks more frequently. So it seems clear: we are all going to disappear from the networks. No, it’s not easy. And it never was. And probably not.

First, the New York Times is an example for other media of almost nothing. Yes, that sounds like an ideal Twitter phrase that sparks an argument, but that doesn’t matter. So let’s try to impress him, we have more features: The NYT is such a huge medium, with so many readers, so much money and, moreover, operating in the global (English) market, that these newspapers cannot be imitated in almost nothing. Certainly not necessary in the business model. They have so many paying readers at their disposal that they can afford to be cheaper than Czech newspapers.

The same is true for networks. NYT colleagues don’t need attention because they get it automatically. Czech journalists need attention because they operate in a small market and almost everyone is struggling to survive. A journalist with lots of social media coverage is of great value to the newsroom because they can draw more people to the content. There are newsrooms that reward the editor(s) for readers who have subscribed to the title based on their articles. Today, quality Internet programs make this possible.

About a year and a half ago, I decided to almost stop arguing on social media. I have also significantly reduced my comments on events there. I consider it to be the best decision I have made in recent years. I have more time to work, I’m calmer, my view of humanity has improved because I don’t have to wade through nonsensical arguments. For a while, I jotted down statuses and tweets I wanted to put on the networks. When I watched them with a slight delay (days or weeks), I found that I was not impoverishing humanity by not disclosing them and avoiding embarrassment many times over. Some tweets no longer made sense, others were completely wrong because they were based on information that was no longer valid within hours.

So it’s easy… No, it’s not. As I got out of the debates, my networking dropped off dramatically. I probably “lost” in a few discussions because I refused to defend myself in battles that didn’t make sense to me. And above all, I don’t have time for them at all. It is now a key product. In the past, I was most often invited to other media not based on my elaborate text in Respekt, but thanks to my timely and up-to-date tweets. After all, the vast majority of people (like the driver, a random passerby) don’t respond to me out of respect, but because they say they know me on the networks. It reminded me of the slogan of some stores: You know thanks to advertising…

Two years ago, I was in a debate with students about journalism. When I mentioned a reporter, the student replied: Yeah, he’s the idiot. I said, “No, he’s a great journalist.” It turned out that all the students present knew the journalists only and solely by their appearance on the networks. They didn’t want to read their articles. And let’s be honest, the communication of a large number of journalists (perhaps only politicians and Roman Joch compete with us) is catastrophic on the networks. This notably led my subsequent reflection to withdraw from the debates. Respectively reduce participation. I see the essence of journalism in providing deeper context, not in “gladiator” clashes.

So what about that? In fact, I have no idea. It’s probably a constant search for a border. I understood that networks do not have a sense of humor. And by that, I mean they don’t have your sense of humor. There is no point in trying to explain anything. Anyone who wants to understand you can. Much of the answer isn’t really for you, but for the coven who shares their opinions (I’ve done more here). Debating with anonymous people and trolls costs you a soul… Nevertheless, networks are a good tool for communicating with readers. You will receive great feedback through the news. And I emphasize this through the news. Those who care about substance usually praise you publicly and “criticize” them secretly. I try to do the same: when I see an error, I prefer to write a message to the person in question to correct it.

Despite these limitations, I spend a lot of time on the networks as I respond to my readers. I fix what’s not working for them on our website, where they find audio – a number of things the editor shouldn’t do. But proximity to readers is essential for us, and we’re just not big enough for anyone else to do that. Due to limited possibilities, social networks are also more or less the only way to get known. Article links are important, although volatile, for website traffic.

Twitter is a good tool, but it’s quite difficult to use.

Leave a Comment