Twittering Fools

I’m not interested in what the public thinks. Nobody is—not even the public.
by Edward Docx, from Prospect
January-February 2010
Add to My MSN

image by Grant Gilliland / www.seegrantdraw.com


Content Tools

Related Content

Discover Your Meta-Identity by Twitterfying Yourself

All of those 140-character messages add up to something: a shockingly telling portrait of yourself.....

The Smartest Videos on the Web

A list of the 40 best cultural and educational video sites available on the internet....

The Most Innovative, Idiotic, Hated, and Envied Ad Agency Today

Many of the most recognizable, creative, inane, offensive, and juvenile ads today come from one adve...

Hyperbole: The Internet’s Greatest Export

Twitter will not single-handedly save journalism. It’s also not silly and dumb....

Imagine this. You are driving along following a reasonably successful holiday—or at least a not-wholly-disastrous change of scene. To your unfolding amazement, the road is clear: no road “work” and no congestion. You have put aside your macro anxieties—war, climate change, U.K. tabloid queen Katie Price—and you are likewise enjoying rare psychological respite from those of a more personal nature: hair, weight, the staggering tedium of your life thus far.

You are not required to make any decisions, there are no strangers in view whom you find attractive, and there is nothing to spend your money on or to remind you that you haven’t got any. In other words, you are happy.

Thus, foolishly buoyed, you reach for the radio hoping for a program worth a sentient adult’s time, and the very first thing you hear is the presenter’s voice saying: “With regard to the global economy, Andy from Cheadle has e-mailed the program to say he thinks that . . .” Blocking the irritation, you switch stations. Another presenter with a different accent seems to be finishing a discussion about Israel and Palestine but, just as you settle back, she says: “Lindsay from Wrexham has texted in to say . . .”

Now the fury surges. Recklessly, you dial through as many stations as there are frequencies, but it’s always the same: “Sandy has gotten in touch to say that everyone knows Afghanistan is really all about . . .”; “Alison from Woodbridge has tweeted that she is in favor of vaccinations but that her doctor is on holiday so . . .”; “Nigel in Hyde is listening while he gets dressed and wonders why, when it comes to the polar ice caps, there can’t be more people like Jeremy Clarkson since . . .”

And so the rage takes full flame and your brief happiness is destroyed. As the traffic comes to a halt, you realize (once again) that you must either endure the misery of millions of atrociously ill-informed opinions or sit in a solitary silence that is filled only with a feverish internalized loathing for your fellow citizens. At home it is the same. All genres of television now contain an abysmal segment during which the anchor or host reads out a series of inane views from variously mad people with an inexplicable surplus of time and self-regard. And then reminds you that you can find more of the same at the commensurate website, on which you are urged to “join the debate” (debate!) with MilesofSmiles and MrLunchBox and Hg5Ylo and Gandalf.

Well, in my world, all of this would stop.

I don’t care what Andy from Cheadle thinks about the Gaza Strip, the ice caps, Manchester City, or even Cheadle. Nobody cares. Nobody except Andy, and presumably he already knows. When I turn on the radio or the television, or when I open a book or a newspaper, what I want is an expert. I want insightful commentary. I want stylistic elegance. I want eloquence. I want uninterrupted expertise.

I’m simply not interested in what the public thinks. Nobody is, except pollsters and marketing research agencies (and they only do it for the money). Not even the public is interested in what the public thinks. That’s why they are listening to the radio and not stopping to inquire of one another in the street. Neither do I wish to suffer the endlessly transparent and disingenuous efforts of presenters pretending to care what the public thinks. Why the soul-incinerating sham?

No more.

In my world, there will be no phoning, texting, tweeting, or e-mailing in. There will be no “feedback.” Nobody will be able to “join the debate.” Viewers will not be allowed to vote. Instead, the only people allowed to appear, speak, or write will be experts—men and women who have devoted substantial parts of their lives to the intricacies of the subjects at hand. The bare minimum should be seven years of verifiable, serious, and continuing immersion. Ideally, at the start of every show, the host should say: “Please do not attempt to contact or contribute to this program unless you have a Nobel Prize in the specific subject now being considered.”

Spontaneous “getters in touch” will be acknowledged only on very rare occasions of extreme expertise and relevance. Should, say, J.D. Salinger break his silence to text during an item about the enduring appeal of the bildungsroman—a novel about a character’s moral and psychological growth—then the newscaster should be permitted to break off and relay his message directly to the viewer. That would be acceptable. Or, conversely, should it transpire that Andy from Cheadle has worked for 10 years in the timber-sealant business, then, on the occasion of the first timber-sealant documentary, Andy from Cheadle should feel cautiously licensed to essay a single e-mail on the subject. But that’s it.

No Andy from Cheadle on bildungs-romans. No Salinger on sealants.

 

Edward Docx is a journalist and author of the novels Pravda and The Calligrapher. Reprinted from Prospect (Sept. 2009), a U.K.-based monthly that treats current affairs with no shortage of verve.
www.prospectmagazine.co.uk 


Previous | 1 | 2 | Next






Post a comment below.

 

faultroy_2
1/18/2010 4:37:18 AM
Have you noticed that we have more PHDs,more top economists, more doctors, more experts in every field. So if we have so many "experts," why are we in the mess that we are in? I know. Because experts really don't know any more than the average person and sometimes less. The reality is that our world is so complex; so immensely diverse, that there really is no such thing as an expert. We are all just trying to take the information that we have and get by and make sense of it all. The only difference between the average "expert," and the average person on the street, is that a street person's opinon will not cost you anything. The expert always has an ulterior motive--and it will always cost you.

crs
1/16/2010 11:56:40 AM
indeed, CNN is the worst offender I've seen. Reading tweets is not journalism. The PBS Newshour is refreshingly free of this, but they don't have 24 hours to fill. the other comments miss the point - nobody is denying your right to an opinion, just understand that it's not inherently worth listening to. Expertise and informed analysis have irreplaceable value. The world is complicated, and statements about it that fit in 140 characters are necessarily simplistic.

Stephen Kastner_2
1/15/2010 1:38:06 PM
If it weren't for the fact that the "experts" have let us down so many times in the past decade, I might find some validity in your opinions. However, your nostalgic look into the aristocratic days of typewritten journalism is merely a sentimental yearning to undo the Internet and the power of populism coming alive with tools in hand. We are sick of the experts who failed to ask important questions like why we were invading Iraq or the most recent expert, the paid shill and notable economist, Jonathan Gruber. I'd rather listen to the multitude of voices and make my own opinions from this point forward. How ironic the ask for comments on an article that detests comments!

Valerye
1/15/2010 12:52:07 PM
In a perfect world, perhaps journalists wouldn't be allowed to comment on whether the proletariat should be allowed to have an opinion on those matters deemed appropriate only for discussion by the educated elites who believe they know what is best for the rest of us.

Valerye
1/15/2010 12:52:01 PM
In a perfect world, perhaps journalists wouldn't be allowed to comment on whether the proletariat should be allowed to have an opinion on those matters deemed appropriate only for discussion by the educated elites who believe they know what is best for the rest of us.

Valerye
1/15/2010 12:51:57 PM
In a perfect world, perhaps journalists wouldn't be allowed to comment on whether the proletariat should be allowed to have an opinion on those matters deemed appropriate only for discussion by the educated elites who believe they know what is best for the rest of us.

Valerye
1/15/2010 12:51:40 PM
In a perfect world, perhaps journalists wouldn't be allowed to comment on whether the proletariat should be allowed to have an opinion on those matters deemed appropriate only for discussion by the educated elites who believe they know what is best for the rest of us.

Valerye
1/15/2010 12:51:38 PM
In a perfect world, perhaps journalists wouldn't be allowed to comment on whether the proletariat should be allowed to have an opinion on those matters deemed appropriate only for discussion by the educated elites who believe they know what is best for the rest of us.

Valerye
1/15/2010 12:51:33 PM
In a perfect world, perhaps journalists wouldn't be allowed to comment on whether the proletariat should be allowed to have an opinion on those matters deemed appropriate only for discussion by the educated elites who believe they know what is best for the rest of us.

Valerye
1/15/2010 12:51:25 PM
In a perfect world, perhaps journalists wouldn't be allowed to comment on whether the proletariat should be allowed to have an opinion on those matters deemed appropriate only for discussion by the educated elites who believe they know what is best for the rest of us.

Valerye
1/15/2010 12:51:08 PM
In a perfect world, perhaps journalists wouldn't be allowed to comment on whether the proletariat should be allowed to have an opinion on those matters deemed appropriate only for discussion by the educated elites who believe they know what is best for the rest of us.

Valerye
1/15/2010 12:51:02 PM
In a perfect world, perhaps journalists wouldn't be allowed to comment on whether the proletariat should be allowed to have an opinion on those matters deemed appropriate only for discussion by the educated elites who believe they know what is best for the rest of us.

Valerye
1/15/2010 12:50:53 PM
In a perfect world, perhaps journalists wouldn't be allowed to comment on whether the proletariat should be allowed to have an opinion on those matters deemed appropriate only for discussion by the educated elites who believe they know what is best for the rest of us.

Valerye
1/15/2010 12:50:46 PM
In a perfect world, perhaps journalists wouldn't be allowed to comment on whether the proletariat should be allowed to have an opinion on those matters deemed appropriate only for discussion by the educated elites who believe they know what is best for the rest of us.








Pay Now & Save $5!
First Name: *
Last Name: *
Address: *
City: *
State/Province: *
Zip/Postal Code:*
Country:
Email:*
(* indicates a required item)
Canadian subs: 1 year, (includes postage & GST). Foreign subs: 1 year, . U.S. funds.
Canadian Subscribers - Click Here
Non US and Canadian Subscribers - Click Here

Want to gain a fresh perspective? Read stories that matter? Feel optimistic about the future? It's all here! Utne Reader offers provocative writing from diverse perspectives, insightful analysis of art and media, down-to-earth news and in-depth coverage of eye-opening issues that affect your life.

Save Even More Money By Paying NOW!

Pay now with a credit card and take advantage of our earth-friendly automatic renewal savings plan. You save an additional $5 and get 4 issues of Utne Reader for only $31.00 (USA only).

Or Bill Me Later and pay just $36 for 4 issues of Utne Reader!