Woodford:Otherwise occupied, I didn't bother with broadcasts of play by play analysis during the vote count but I did enjoy twitter feeds discussing the outcome. There is something seductive about a form that limits communications to 140 characters.
Maybe the question is "Why did/does MSM underestimate/ignore public anger over ethical failures of BC Libs?"Woodford:
that's crap pure and simple I hate the rag on the "MSM" crap it's tea bag in the ocean weakFarrell:
Which part crap? Ethical failures? Public anger? MSM downplaying both?
I'm reminded of Dr. Johnson's words,
"Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."Were he around today, Samuel J. might have written,
"Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows his message is to be unmercifully abridged, it focuses his missive marvellously."Twitter is an art, art not particularly indicated in the exchange noted above. The microblogging service began in 2006 and I managed to ignore it for five years. I now see its power and I've moved from John Stewart's position:
"For the uninitiated, here’s how Twitter works – I have no f***ing idea. I have no idea how it works – or why it is"to that of Harvard law professor and Internet expert Jonathan Zittrain:
“The qualities that make Twitter seem inane and half-baked are what makes it so powerful”Recommend this post