Disclaimer: This is not an attempt to target or bash a specific journalist everything here is my opinion and by extension the opinion of Disgruntled News. Nor is this an attempt to defend the subject of the journalist’s article which in this case is Elon Musk. The journalist’s opinion is her own and she is entitled to it. Disgruntled New will condemn an attempt to harass her or Quartz because of a differing opinion. The whole point of a Free Press is to communicate the news and free exchange of ideas and opinions. We don’t have to agree with them and to harass others for believing in those ideas undermines the very freedoms we take for granted and does a disservice to our Constitution and the rights enshrined therein.
While preparing to work on this morning’s story, Let’s Talk About Depression Shall We, this article, Elon Musk couldn’t fix twitter in two months…, appeared in my notifications. Immediately I got the impression that the article was not favorable toward Elon Musk, and that is putting it nicely because I want to put forth a professional outlook for Disgruntled News.
After opening the article, and judging a book by its cover or in this case, a new article by its headline leads to incorrect assumptions, it turned out that my first impression was correct. The very first sentence, “Elon Musk can’t handle the mess at Twitter and his ego is not allowing him to let go in a dignified manner.”
Followed by, “When Elon Musk ran a Twitter poll asking whether or not he should step down as Twitter CEO, he didn’t have a successor in mind. After the majority of the votes favored his resignation, he tried to blame the results on an “itsy bitsy bot problem on Twitter” and floated the idea that only paying Twitter Blue subscribers should be able to vote on such polls. Still, he indicated he plans to honor the results.
I emphasized “he tried to blame” the results on an “itsy bitsy bot problem on Twitter”. Let me first indicate that I removed the hyperlinks in the above quote, but she did indeed link to the quote. However, she did not fully quote Elon Musk and if a reader were not inclined to follow the link then they might just take her word for it instead of making up their mind.
The full quote, “Interesting. Suggest that maybe we might still have an itsy bitsy bot problem on Twitter …”
With the full quote perhaps the reader who does not click the link might decide to disagree with her position because she implies there is no bot problem and the results are completely fair but stops short of saying it outright. I can see how someone might conclude that he was blaming the results on bots and I am not suggesting that she didn’t do her due diligence in reporting on this story. It’s obvious that she wants to sway public opinion and that is okay, but I believe the public should have the whole story.
Insofar as the bots are concerned, I showed in my article, I Created a Twitter Poll and I Totally Cheated, I showed how easy it is to fudge the results of a poll on Twitter. I set up a Twitter poll asking, “Is Die Hard a Christmas Movie?” then I paid $2.28 for 150 votes to vote yes. Those 150 votes were the only votes in the poll and then I showed the analytics. The public does not get to see the analytics so to say that he was blaming the results on bots is an opinion and not fact.
She continued on to say, “floated the idea that only paying Twitter Blue subscribers should be able to vote on such polls“.
This line has some potential but reads more like an afterthought, it’s not clear what her opinion is. I do have some misgivings about this idea, specifically, what assurances do we have that the bots won’t be able to bork the polls?
Bork:
Verb
- To misconfigure, especially a computer or other complex device.
- To break or damage.
- To defeat a judicial nomination through a concerted attack on the nominee’s character, background, and philosophy.
From Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. More at Wordnik
The article then goes on to fully quote Elon Musk:
On his own poll, he replied, “When I find someone foolish enough to accept the CEO position, I will step down immediately! After that, I’ll just be managing the software and server teams.”
Totally acceptable with a link back to the full quote, perfect, great job.
The rest of the article goes on to express some legitimate criticisms backed up by facts with links, but some of those facts don’t tell the whole story. Under the heading, A job description for Twitter’s next CEO in Musk’s words, is somewhat misleading but not wholly wrong, just incomplete and overly contentious.
Some of her links to support her position link back to her articles, which there is nothing in and of itself wrong with that; however, given that I would not allow this article in its current form and would send it back to her for a rewrite, likely, those articles would not be allowed in their current form either.
I would allow an article like this on Disgruntled News because it’s important to show contrasting viewpoints, just not in its current state. The title is not the greatest but I might preface it with Opinion in the title. I would also add a disclaimer to effect that her opinions were hers alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Disgruntled News.
Regarding the incomplete quote about the “itsy bitsy bot problem on Twitter” I would have her include the full quote and clarify her opinion on the matter, does she believe that no bots were voting in the polls, can she prove that bot voting is unlikely, maybe even challenge Elon Musk to show the analytics on the poll itself. My philosophy is that if I say X is true, then pretend I am from Missouri and show me A, B, and C to prove it.
The part about, “floated the idea that only paying Twitter Blue subscribers should be able to vote on such polls“. Expand upon it a little bit, do you agree with it or not, and why, maybe even make it into its own story, or drop it altogether.
Linkbacks to her articles are acceptable except that they would have to meet the same standards that I have shown here. Outside article links that don’t follow these standards are acceptable but it’s important to show the whole story so that the reader can make up their own mind on whether or not to agree with the opinion being expressed. For example, the statement that “advertisers pulling out” is factually correct but some of them may have returned.
I want to stress that the critique of this article is not an attack against the journalist who wrote it or Quartz. I picked this article specifically to show how an article such as this would have to meet the standards that I want Disgruntled News to live up to. If the author or Quartz feels that I have been unfair or inaccurate in any way, I absolutely will give them equal time. I can be contacted here contact.