|
Seems like the thread for this: Max Boot has an article out comparing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Sarah Palin. It reads about like you'd expect a Max Boot column comparing AOC to Sarah Palin to read, and isn't that interesting except as another example of a nevertrumper tut-tutting about leftists in America. I mention it here because the tone of many comments on the article differ pretty jarringly from the social media reaction. Basically, it looks to me like Boot is getting absolutely dragged on Twitter, but getting plenty of supportive chin scratching hrmery on the actual WaPo page. I wouldn't necessarily have expected that. I could muse about why, but first I'm wondering if this is just my bias latching on to comments I disagree with or if there is actually an overall trend here. Is this difference in engagement something that anyone's dived into in more detail? article tweet: https://twitter.com/MaxBoot/status/1082596717445419010
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:29 |
|
|
awesmoe posted:You're asking if twitter is more radical than washington post commenters? I'm getting at the ideological bent of the social media commentary on a WaPo piece as opposed to the comments on the actual page, so sort of yes, sort of no? I'd expect more radical commentary of all stripes on Twitter, given the nature of the platform. What I was seeing was in comparison a hefty tilt away from the conservative side of things, both in terms of the usual sniping and in actual engagement with the piece. (As an aside, rereading some of the comments, Tom Nichols getting really huffy about the Iraq war being an albatross and trying to claim Palin's flaws weren't obvious from the start was very cathartic) eviltastic fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Jan 8, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2019 20:28
|
|