In the Irish Times today (I’ll link despite not being prepared to pay the LinkToll) David Adams describes Internet Journalism at the level equivalent to the Stone Age.  

This is followed by a stone age level diatribe that would have been old and uniformed five years ago. In a piece devoid of facts he refers to Internet journalism as

For all its immediacy and modernity, aside from what conventional media itself contributes, so-called internet journalism is at a level equivalent to the Stone Age. Its main consideration is attention-grabbing, not accuracy: “hits” matter more than fact-checking.

 

This would be unlike serious journalism which goes for  attention-grabbing, inaccurate, link baiting headlines like the one on his own piece.

 

David Adams is like a man who wanders into a pub and rants that the conversation in the pub is not the same as debate in scientific journals. Twitter is for the most part conversation not journalism.

In his screed against twitter Adams says

Twitter is used mainly as a platform for corporate advertising and self-promotion; spreading gossip, rumour and lies; and heaping abuse upon others. Who would want to be considered as anything but inept in that sphere?

Adam’s is so inept that he confuses Facebook with Twitter.

Either way I haven’t come to defend Twitter. It doesn’t need defending. I’d ask one question of David Adams though – why would you want to be willingly inept at conversation?

His opinion piece doesn’t show us any examples of online journalism that are stone age.  In fact his piece doesn’t show us a single example even a strawman of online journalism. If he is interested in some real online journalism he might take a look at this piece  on how @witnessorg partnered with @Storyful to verify the authenticity of citizen war video. Or he might take a look at TheStory.ie. Though to be honest all this work isn’t internet journalism, its simply good journalism.

If we want to talk about non internet journalism we could talk about Leveson. We could talk about what passes for journalism in the red tops. We could talk about Paparazzi. There are lots of things we could talk about but we won’t. Why use facts when uninformed opinion would do.

Instead he extoles us to be more like Pier Morgan. The same Piers Morgan who was fired for printing faked images in the paper he edited. The same Piers Morgan the Leveson report referred to someone who in relation to phone hacking “clearly prove is that he was aware that it was taking place in the press as a whole and that he was sufficiently unembarrassed by what was criminal behaviour that he was prepared to joke about it”.

And David Adams would like you to be more like Piers because he has good grammer and he is witty. He’s trolling right ?