>> Quoting Pew: "Drudge Report: Small Operation, Large Influence" [1], and Wikipedia[2]: "The Drudge Report originally attained prominence when it was the first to report what came to be known as the Lewinsky scandal. It published the story on January 17, 1998, showing that Newsweek had turned down the story."
> Indeed. I just quoted Pew making that claim: "you haven't even claimed Drudge Report is influential"
But Pew does not make that claim. "Prominence" does not mean "influential." Influential means, the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something. Prominence means, the state of being important or famous. Your prevarication of these two words is fallacious.
> And nearly 100% of journalists from other news sources are on Twitter.
Pew reports 69%[1], so there's only about 12,000 journalists in the US that do not use Twitter.
> Oh, I see. You are under the misapprehension that "influence" means "pushing the result decisively one way or the other"
Without effect, it is not influence, as influence requires effect. Ahd if any effect is negated, there is, in fact, no effect. That is how arithmetic works.
> "Influence" can also mean changing the way it plays out, which is clearly the case as seen by the transmission and amplification of various conspiracy theories on Twitter and other social media.
Sure, Twitter is influencing elections to have the exact same results as if it had no effect. It is a very subtle, self-negating sort of influence.
> Indeed. I just quoted Pew making that claim: "you haven't even claimed Drudge Report is influential"
But Pew does not make that claim. "Prominence" does not mean "influential." Influential means, the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something. Prominence means, the state of being important or famous. Your prevarication of these two words is fallacious.
> And nearly 100% of journalists from other news sources are on Twitter.
Pew reports 69%[1], so there's only about 12,000 journalists in the US that do not use Twitter.
> Oh, I see. You are under the misapprehension that "influence" means "pushing the result decisively one way or the other"
Without effect, it is not influence, as influence requires effect. Ahd if any effect is negated, there is, in fact, no effect. That is how arithmetic works.
> "Influence" can also mean changing the way it plays out, which is clearly the case as seen by the transmission and amplification of various conspiracy theories on Twitter and other social media.
Sure, Twitter is influencing elections to have the exact same results as if it had no effect. It is a very subtle, self-negating sort of influence.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/27/twitter-is-...