"It's not helped by organizations such as the BBC who report on what happens on Twitter as if it is actually news."
Ah. That's a trick used by 'credible news outlets' to promote an ideology when they're supposed to remain 'neutral'.
When a journo wants to say something ideological, but is limited in editorial scope by supposed 'neutrality', all he needs to do is find a Tweet somewhere that says what he wants, and can then publish it and say 'people are saying XYZ' - as though it represents a 'popular view' - even though it does not.
I am not ideological or political, but it's far more common among left-ish leaning editorialists. About 85% of people working at the BBC, CBC, CNN are left of centre, they are professionals and are pretty good at trying to remain neutral, but the biases come out one way or another. The editorial chiefs don't care because they're cut from the same cloth - so as long as the veneer of professionalism is there (and they're not offending advertisers) it flies.
80% of news - even at the 'reputable sites' is total fluff. They need to keep writing about something. So they invent the news.
In another sense this is not a new phenom: in the old days everyone read/watched local news. They report on the most inane thing: cats stuck in trees. But people loved it because it was super local and relevant to them, i.e. 'gossipy'. Twitter is the 'gossip' for the new urban types that don't have strong local social networks to gossip within.
At my grandmothers house, people would stop in, chat for 20 mins with Gran, and after they were gone I had no idea why they stopped by! It was just gossip. That's the 'old timey' Twitter!
