Wednesday, October 8, 2014

TWIT defines the news

It's official...

This Blog is NOT, I repeat, NOT a news site.

Not that I ever said it was but I digress..

I was informed of this fact by a "helpful" TWIT chatroom moderator who goes by the mysterious moniker of "Dan" during the Sunday October 5th edition of This Week in Tech (TWIT).

The whole exchange came about whilst happily participating in the "G-rated" revelry that is the TWIT IRC chatroom.  As the messages flew by, I noticed somebody asking if a popular TWIT show called, "The Social Hour" was still on.

Realizing that I had recently written an article on the topic I responded to the inquiry with a link and moved on.

Apparently, that was a mistake.

After a few more exchanges on unrelated topics covered in Sunday's show I noticed that TWIT Chat Moderator "Dan" was requesting that I check my "PM's"

So I complied and upon entering Dan's private little IRC channel he informed me that, " Only links from a news site were acceptable in the IRC channel." and " that your blog was not a legitimate news source."  Considering I'd seen this rule violated on more than one occasion by others including show producers, hosts and even moderators I knew I was again running headlong into the TWIT delusion. 

But I let it pass as I knew it was just the grumblings of yet another TWIT chat moderator with an inflated ego.

He went on to inform me that this was my only "Warning."

A little stunned but not really surprised given my checkered past with TWIT chatroom moderators I replied, " I'll keep your warning in mind

That wasn't enough for good ol' Dan, however, and he proceeded to go into half a paragraph of how he set the rules for the TWIT chatroom and was the final say in all things TWIT IRC, and he alone set the tone etc, etc...

Which after a brief pause brought out my inner 12 year old resulting in a response of...

"You really enjoy your little power trip don't you?  You know what Dan, Fuck Off...bye"

Being a mature male I probably could have handled that exchange better but I tend to respond as a child when treated like one.  Especially when it's undeserved....

To hell with turning the other cheek...

I'll be damned if I'll let some IRC moderator with a Napoleon complex get the better of me.  Besides, it's the first opportunity I've had to blindside the SOB the same way he blindsided me the last time I got kicked for some unknown, ambiguous sin.

I'm probably banned for life from TWIT chatrooms now but to be honest, the quality of TWIT programming has me finding less and less need of the convenience.  What it does bring to mind, however, is just what the definition of news is.

Dan's little admonition to me reeks of hypocrisy.  A close look at TWIT's "news" coverage finds it  largely comprised of rehashed content from other so-called "legitimate" news sources like TechCrunch, Engadget, Reddit and the occasional tweet.  TWIT's "news" programming is best described as a collection of editorial magazines aggregating someone else's content.  Which may have triggered my response. 

The articles in this blog that have been written about TWIT are no less valid if TWIT's "news" coverage is held up as the standard.  While they may be more editorial in nature they're always researched, sourced and unlike much of TWIT's news content, original reporting.  The difference is, the subject is TWIT which is likely what got dear old Dan's feathers ruffled.    

Dan can do whatever he wants with his chatrooms but his motives appear less about upholding journalistic integrity than censorship of anything that denies the delusion that currently pervades TWIT. 

The definition of "news" no longer meets the definition that "Dan" subscribes to.  How a "progressive" medium like TWIT fails to realize that is hypocritical bordering on the ridiculous.  Hey guys, we're not limited to 3 TV networks and some disembodied voice on the radio to tell us what's going on anymore.   

As far as TWIT goes, I've yet to see anything original come from them that had a Reuters or Associated Press tag attached to a story.  Meaning if we accept TWIT's definition of "news" coverage then what they provide is little more than editorials aggregated from so-called "real" sources.

Leading to the conclusion that they have no more value than what you'll find here...