Journalists and influencers are two very different things, friend. Any jackass with a YouTube channel or Instagram account can be an influencer. Journalism requires education, investigative and literary skill, and vetting.
No, journalists are influencers. You can make a distinction between types and quality of influencers (people with platforms and followers who they influence with the content they publish), but dont condemn all influencers.
Perhaps this is an argument over semantics, rather than anything substantive.
When I say “influencer,” I’m referring to a class of people whose lives revolve around producing performative content on social media that does not meaningfully add to society.
We’re using the word “influencer” differently here. You’re using it the literal way - “one who influences.” The version I’m using is narrower in scope.
But if you insist on using your terminology, then I’ll refer to them not as “influencers” but rather “social media attention whores.” Does that make you feel better?
There are also influencers who care only about themselves, like those who like to stomp around in other people’s gardens without permission in order to get a “good photo” for their followers.
Life long New Yorker. Used to work near Wall Street. All the top decision makers read the New York Times. They read it because it promises to give them the information they need.
Is it pro-capitalist? Yes. Does it give voice to right Wing folks? Yes.
It isn’t perfect, but it’s where I start when I need to know something.
Its unfortunate if you dont support good journalists.
Most corporate media is crap. Its important to follow and support the work of good journalists.
Journalists and influencers are two very different things, friend. Any jackass with a YouTube channel or Instagram account can be an influencer. Journalism requires education, investigative and literary skill, and vetting.
No, journalists are influencers. You can make a distinction between types and quality of influencers (people with platforms and followers who they influence with the content they publish), but dont condemn all influencers.
Perhaps this is an argument over semantics, rather than anything substantive.
When I say “influencer,” I’m referring to a class of people whose lives revolve around producing performative content on social media that does not meaningfully add to society.
Journalists are influencers.
We’ve had influencers for thousands of years. Jesus Christ was an influencer.
We’re using the word “influencer” differently here. You’re using it the literal way - “one who influences.” The version I’m using is narrower in scope.
But if you insist on using your terminology, then I’ll refer to them not as “influencers” but rather “social media attention whores.” Does that make you feel better?
Sure. Or you can say “bad influencers” or “the influencers who spread misinformation”
There are also influencers who care only about themselves, like those who like to stomp around in other people’s gardens without permission in order to get a “good photo” for their followers.
OK, so “asshole influencers”
But I dont understand how that would influence anyone.
Bring the down votes.
Life long New Yorker. Used to work near Wall Street. All the top decision makers read the New York Times. They read it because it promises to give them the information they need.
Is it pro-capitalist? Yes. Does it give voice to right Wing folks? Yes.
It isn’t perfect, but it’s where I start when I need to know something.
Fortunately the US has much better news outlets that aren’t puppets for corporations