Online narcissism
Bloggers are often accused of being narcissistic people who write some really irrelevant rubbish. Now, I know a lot of British bloggers and most of them are highly intelligent and interesting individuals. But there are times you think about some people: my god, really, you’re obsessed by that?
So Rachel Sylvester writes an article criticising Twitter. It probably applies to some people – though I find that updating my Facebook status gets more responses, but really – it’s just a laugh isn’t it?
Oh no. Guido Fawkes goes off and does a full blown analysis including the numbers of how many people follow whom and vice versa. Inevitably he has a go at political enemies and pats his mates on the back. Fool please, who you kidding? Then Iain Dale joins in – and accuses Guido of writing a “thoughtful post”, surely a libellous claim?
Then all sorts of people, including Iain and Guido both get real excited when Derek Draper of LabourList gets temporarily banned from Twitter. OMFG hold the front page! There’s some serious shit going on! Honestly, people have far too much time on their hands.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Blog
Has someone swapped Sunny with Samuel L Jackson?
you betta’ recognise!
“Fool please” LOL! Next up, eating tasty cheeseburgers and quoting Ezekiel 25:17…
“Bloggers are often accused of being narcissistic people who write some really irrelevant rubbish….
So Rachel Sylvester writes an article criticising Twitter.”
It’s not only some bloggers, but just people using Twitter in general. I don’t get the hype about it, why people are “tweeting” about things I could give two shits about. Like, “My hubby and kids have gone to bed…finally I get some rest!” or “I’m at the airport, just killing time.” Do I care? No.
BUT, if politicians are using Twitter, great way to call them out on tweets coming out all wrong and discordant. But even then, I imagine that PR people have taken over to make sure the tweets are polished, pleasing to the ear, and not making too much ruckus.
Heh.
Only someone as trivial as Guido, would think something as irrelevant as Draper’s twitter account would constitute a news story.
He’s almost as desperate as that serial internet-pest, Dizzy.
The article was about the relative futility of Twitter. My mate Prezza? Not sure he would agree. Some mistake surely. I’ll leave the serious social commentary to you Sunny. You know me, Westminster soap-opera and tittle-tattle is more my bag.
Why have you written an article about this flim-flammery?
And there you go, amplifying their pointlessness. You gotta let some things go, Sunny!
*Honestly, people have far too much time on their hands.*
Yes, about as much time as YOU had on your hands to write this piece. Sheesh!
Desi Italiani, it’s a bit like anal intercourse. If you don’t see the point in it DON’T DO IT. End of story.
Why people have to waste time telling us what a waste of time other people’s activities are is completely beyond me.
Bloggers divide into those that believe they are doing something “serious” and important, or are frustrated because they are trying to and failing, and those of us who realise that blogging for most people is just a pastime, like painting model soldiers, and doesn’t add up to a hill of beans.
I’ll let you “serious”, self-important bloggers do your thing if you’ll just stop patronising the rest of us. After all, surely there are FAR more important things you could all be doing than moaning about Guido, Dale, Dizzy, Twitter et al?
I was blogging about this yesterday as well and the verdict from my readers was split between Twitter being a waste of time (my view) and Twitter being really useful for a few limited tasks.
Yes, there are more important things to talk about but I guess the impending financial doom isn’t fun to blog about every single day.
What particularly interested me about the Rachel Sylvester piece is the idea that one psychologist can sensibly comment on the mental health of millions of people he’s never met.
This sort of “I’ve read a bit about you therefore I can make medical pronouncements” is popular in the media – and to me it is far from clear that this is the sort of stuff we should welcome, regardless of who is on the receiving end of the diagnosis.
I use neither Twitter nor Facebook but I am totally for these innovations – experimentation with new communication channels is to be welcomed, me says. It definitely has it’s uses and its great defenders (Stephen Fry is a Tweeting sensation). Whether Twitter goes the way of Coca-Cola Spinners or E-mail is up to the users and I’m sure it will have some ‘productive’ uses… but this takes experimentation. I don’t think it’s right to knock the channel so much as the content and we need to give more time to see what type of content develops beyond mere status updates.
As for the psychologist quote – that pretty sums up the futility and credibility of the ill-thought out piece. People are paid to speak and to write, and this looks like an example of writing something because something had to be written. Perhaps popular journalists should write content stories and put them up for auction – this way they would be forced to focus on what is important and truly interesting and all the ‘writing for the sake of writing’ would be abolished. Yes, lets set up a portal for auctioning articles (E-bay for the written word!). I will sell this idea for 50p.
But who’s ended up with the comb?
Random stat: Jodrell Bank has 1/3 as many followers as Patrick Moore has viewers. Discuss.
Why have you written an article about this flim-flammery?
What, I can’t even rant on my own blog?
lol @ Matt W
Mark – agreed, the article was over the top and silly.
And there you go, amplifying their pointlessness. You gotta let some things go, Sunny!
sometimes you just have to point and laugh (or cry)