The Atlantic Argues World Leaders Should Not Have Unfiltered Voice

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,532
I do not think this next statement will come as a surprise to anyone. World leaders are using Twitter as a platform to directly communicate with the world. Assuredly some politicians more than others. Last week Twitter directly addressed world leaders and its policies toward those. The media and other reporting organizations no longer control the voice of our world leaders, and is seems that some of the folks in the media do not like this at all. Conor Friedersdorf, at The Atlantic, is coming out arguing that Twitter does not understand its responsibility to the world and goes further to suggest that Twitter should not allow world leaders to have a voice at all and I guess only allow the media to shape the messages that we get from our leaders. And just when it seems that Twitter was taking the high ground on the politics of its business, it all went sideways. It also might come as a shock to you that "social media is a veritable tinder box for arguments."

I have found that the best way to deal with Twitter on a personal level is to not use it.

Thus, I urged, Twitter ought to just ban world leaders. There are so few of them. And the risk that one will abuse the platform in a way that irrevocably harms millions isn’t worth the tiny benefit humanity gains from following their tweets, given the myriad ways all world leaders can convey information to the public.

Keep this thread ON TOPIC. Should you wish to discuss politics, take it to the SOAPBOX.
 
Twitter makes more money with people like Donald Trump.

Period.
 
I have no problem with politicians, authors, actors, whomever... to have an unfiltered voice on twitter or any other social media.

I do think that politicians need a certain amount of tact especially since their words are more readily available than in the past.
 
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand I think it's a step forward to remove mainstream media the communication of world leaders. It's important that people understand the intention of their leaders without the mainstream media corporate interest filters. On the other hand, we have idiots like Trump just blasting all sorts of nonsense out to the world, that is just downright embarrassing to this country as a whole. I would think if used more intelligently, it could be a good thing.

Look at it this way: Fools will believe whatever they read or see from certain sources. Fictional places, fictional events, breakthroughs in alternative "medicine", conspiracy idiocy. There is no power on earth that will stop that from happening, fools and conspiracy nuts were no less prevalent before the internet. They just have a place to act like fools in front of an audience now.

It's going to come down to whether the people tweeting or posting have any respect for their position or not. Even then most people will point and laugh, there will always be those that drink the Kool-Aid. Social media doesn't change that.
 
The news is like Milk, you can't just in take it in its raw form, it has too many potentially bad things in it. You need media outlets to pasteurize that news for you
 
I'm actually leaning towards agreeing. World leaders are akin to the captain of the ship. The captain is happy, the crew is happy; captain is nervous, crew is nervous; captain is bat-shit crazy, the crew goes bat-shit crazy.

Bottom line for me, the captain must at all times give the impression of intention, of long-term stability, and of resolve to achieve that long-term goal. Being privy to their "deep thoughts while taking a poop at 2AM" mind does nothing to further those ends.
 
I'm actually leaning towards agreeing. World leaders are akin to the captain of the ship. The captain is happy, the crew is happy; captain is nervous, crew is nervous; captain is bat-shit crazy, the crew goes bat-shit crazy.

Bottom line for me, the captain must at all times give the impression of intention, of long-term stability, and of resolve to achieve that long-term goal. Being privy to their "deep thoughts while taking a poop at 2AM" mind does nothing to further those ends.

I agree that world leaders are akin to a captain of a ship, but everything after that, not so much. You can have a happy captain and a pissed off crew. You can have a nervous captain and a normal crew. You can have a bat-shit crazy captain, and a normal crew. In a place where the crew has no power, they can mutiny. In places like the US, the crew has the power to override the captain.

That's not to say that the captain won't freak out the other boats in the ocean though. Our captain is definitely doing that, but personally. I'm fine with that. It's time that we see how our world leaders are, unfiltered.
 
Considering how much the media lies by omission, takes comments out of context, and must always give their own irrelevant analysis on things said: I am going to have to respectfully disagree with The Atlantic. It's not even just tweets. Let's not forget a certain fish feeding incident that happened in a west Asian island country late last year that had video evidence that went against the media narrative.
 
lol Kyle. I just created a Twitter account last week because my son's teacher at school uses it to share pictures from the classroom and various school projects. Had it not been for that E-mail, I'd still be Twitless, er Tweeterdumb, er, something like that.

I still don't "follow' anyone though. It looks like a complete mess of names and I don't know any of them, or businesses that I don't need more advertising from.
 
I don;t even have a Twitter account. I thought the concept was kind of stupid from the beginning. And so apparently did Twitter when they raised the message length limit. That said, Atlantic is just proving how crazy the traditional media has gotten since they lost their lock on control of what everyone knows. Any time some organization or person sits between the source and the consumer, there is bias and censorship, even if it's unintentional. The only way to get the whole unvarnished truth is right from the horse's mouth. It's all right there. The source can deny ever saying something, but it's right there. Their own words, unmodified by any form of discrimination, censorship, or bias. Have at it. Sorry Atlantic, you are yesterday's news and quite wrong about this.
 
Middle-men always oppose being cut out of the loop.

"News" organizations don't generally create news (except when they are the news, or when they rig pickup trucks to blow up), they're just middle-men who collect it up, filter/distort/contextualize it, and distribute it, looking for profit.

Of course they object to being bypassed. Like most middle-men, most journalists are incapable of actually producing anything of value from scratch. So what are they going to do for a living if they can't "report" news?

Seriously, there's people ("news anchors") being paid millions of dollars a year to sit behind a desk and read prepared text. It's absurd.
 
Years ago, many folks wished for a way to easily talk to/hear from their leaders. Just proves the old adage, "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it."

I for one like being able to hear unfiltered thoughts from people in power. Used to be hard to figure out just who was really saying a message attributed to a leader. Was it the leader, press agent, speech writer, press reporter, press editor, etc. Turns out many of them have thoughts just as screwed up as the rest of us.
 
I fail to see why world leaders couldn't be held to the same standards everyone else is. Well, except profit, of course.

I suppose there is a "Pandora's Box" aspect in the case of world leaders, but come on.
 
Easy answer: because unlike most "everyone else" on Twitter, what world leaders think actually matters.

"Matters" in what way? Historical significance? I suppose Assad tweeting about gassing his citizens based on ethnic group might be of interest in a war crimes trial. I still don't see how Twitter is obligated to treat world leaders differently. They aren't journalists, but they're trying to don the mantle of journalistic integrity when it happens to be advantageous, but I guarantee they'll discard that mantle the minute it is in their financial self interest to do so.

Then again, what else should we expect in the era of profit-driven "news" as entertainment?
 
Last edited:
nudging news organizations away from thoughtless public conflict and toward sober reflection and deliberation before their thoughts reach millions.
It's rather funny how The Atlantic's self-righteous rant is exactly what should be leveled at the majority of news organizations these days, who have sacrificed journalistic integrity in the race to respond to DJT's latest tweets.
 
I'm all down for twatter hate, but proposing that someone shouldn't be allowed to express themselves is kinda nuts in a free society. First and foremost, politicians(leaders) are people, and people have a right to express themselves which takes precedence over their position.

Besides, being a politician is two faced enough, having unfiltered comments become public is a good way to see how they think/work.
 
I'm all down for twatter hate, but proposing that someone shouldn't be allowed to express themselves is kinda nuts in a free society. First and foremost, politicians(leaders) are people, and people have a right to express themselves which takes precedence over their position.

Besides, being a politician is two faced enough, having unfiltered comments become public is a good way to see how they think/work.
Freedom of the Press upset by Free Speech. LOL!
 
I'm glad it's unfiltered as it can show what idiots we're actually dealing with.
 
I'm all down for twatter hate, but proposing that someone shouldn't be allowed to express themselves is kinda nuts in a free society. First and foremost, politicians(leaders) are people, and people have a right to express themselves which takes precedence over their position.

Besides, being a politician is two faced enough, having unfiltered comments become public is a good way to see how they think/work.

My problem is that it's disingenuous for Twitter to moderate everyday citizens only to make exceptions as soon as doing so drives page hits.
 
My problem is that it's disingenuous for Twitter to moderate everyday citizens only to make exceptions as soon as doing so drives page hits.
I fully agree, that's why i hate twitter as a platform and as a company. They're hypocritical to the core.

But it does at least mimic the legal system in which there's one system for the common folk and another for the rich and famous.
 
Middle-men always oppose being cut out of the loop.

"News" organizations don't generally create news (except when they are the news, or when they rig pickup trucks to blow up), they're just middle-men who collect it up, filter/distort/contextualize it, and distribute it, looking for profit.

And that, right there, is the problem. For-profit news creates a strong incentive to put ratings before facts.

Then again, I listen to NPR, which to some people probably makes me a communist. ;)
 
Another issue I am torn on.

On the one hand, the filter of the media can be a bias, and this Twitter provides a way for leaders circumvent bias.

That being said, traditionally journalism has been responsible for getting to the truth, and helping the public who may not have the time or the inclination to research what is and what isn't true get good information.

Allowing world leaders to disseminate information without any checks as to the veracity of that information is also problematic.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
 
Wow. The chutzpah of these twits is limitless. There is a reason that growing numbers of people no longer believe anything that modern journalism spews out.
 
I fully agree, that's why i hate twitter as a platform and as a company. They're hypocritical to the core.

But it does at least mimic the legal system in which there's one system for the common folk and another for the rich and famous.

That is both obviously true and deeply discouraging. :(
 
Another issue I am torn on.

On the one hand, the filter of the media can be a bias, and this Twitter provides a way for leaders circumvent bias.

That being said, traditionally journalism has been responsible for getting to the truth, and helping the public who may not have the time or the inclination to research what is and what isn't true get good information.

Allowing world leaders to disseminate information without any checks as to the veracity of that information is also problematic.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Well said.
 
Another issue I am torn on.

On the one hand, the filter of the media can be a bias, and this Twitter provides a way for leaders circumvent bias.

That being said, traditionally journalism has been responsible for getting to the truth, and helping the public who may not have the time or the inclination to research what is and what isn't true get good information.

Allowing world leaders to disseminate information without any checks as to the veracity of that information is also problematic.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I'd agree with you if the media still had ethics and did good investigative journalistic work like in the days of Vietnam. Unfortunately, the search for the truth no longer drives their agenda.
 
And that, right there, is the problem. For-profit news creates a strong incentive to put ratings before facts.

Then again, I listen to NPR, which to some people probably makes me a communist. ;)


With any news source you ought to trace the money funding it, as it may be a source of intentional or unintentional bias.

With for profit news 100% of that money is coming from someone who probably has an agenda. Likewise wholly funded government news stations like the BBC, RT and Sputnik are also problematic, as the money comes from a government which has an agenda.

In the grand scheme of things, NPR is probably among the better choices, as only 2% of the funding comes directly from the federal government. The rest is largely funded to local member stations by listeners making donations and local small business underwriters. It's hard to imagine a system creating less money-traceable bias than that.
 
"Matters" in what way? Historical significance? I suppose Assad tweeting about gassing his citizens based on ethnic group might be of interest in a war crimes trial. I still don't see how Twitter is obligated to treat world leaders differently. They aren't journalists, but they're trying to don the mantle of journalistic integrity when it happens to be advantageous, but I guarantee they'll discard that mantle the minute it is in their financial self interest to do so.

Then again, what else should we expect in the era of profit-driven "news" as entertainment?

News has Always been profit driven entertainment. it just had the false veneer of journalistic integrity beck before the internet allowed people to see things in real time. Research the media blitz leading up to the Spanish American war. the entire war was the result of newspapers making up a fucking story to sell papers.
 
The rest is largely funded to local member stations by listeners making donations and local small business underwriters. It's hard to imagine a system creating less money-traceable bias than that.

From Wikipedia: "The study found those occupying board seats of NPR and its member stations disproportionately have corporate affiliations such as investment funds, banking, consulting firms and corporate law firms with 75 percent of board members falling into such categories.
 
Back
Top