Skip to main content

Why I can't be doing with twitter

Now. I have maintained that twitter is where I draw the line, and the reason I have consistently given is that I recoil at the ego rampant. It mystifies me that anyone would imagine their every waking moment should be documented for the edification of others, and, to be fair to me, it still does. Sure I blog a bit, but mostly for my own amusement, and at a frequency so intermittent that it's clear to all and sundry that hey, I am doing things, other things, things which don't involve a keyboard.

But it's only part of the truth, and it's time to confess the whole. You see, I also have a bit of an addctive personality when it comes to information, and then I tend to get nothing done. I have learned this lesson bitterly as the net has evolved, and I know damn well that twitter would tip me over the edge if I let it. Proof positive occurred today, when I was forced to tweet for professional reasons, and before you knew t I was deep into some utterly utterly meaningless media gangbang about whether or not the grauniad was right to run a lily allen interview given the poor girl's recent travails; a subject about which, at one remove, I realise I care little.

And you know what, I suspect that all the tweeters, were they stop and thnk about it for a second, would realise that hey, they didn't actually care that much about it either. But no, call must invite response und so weiter ad fucking nauseam.

You see, I'm inclined to agree with Giles Coren's point that it wasn't in the best of taste to run the interview, but then, I don't think it's in the best of taste to start an argument on the internet about it, either, because you see, Gilo, YOU'RE STILL COVERING THE STORY. And now I realise I'm getting involved in something I still don't really care about on any personal or visceral level, with respect to poor Ms Allen. And then I realise oh fuck, I'm following something on bleeding twitter, and that's half an hour of my life I'm not getting back.

Now some people I respect and admire are advocates of social media, for various admirable reasons, but in my case, as the hardened drinker refrains from even cider lollies, you can shove it up its solipsistic arse, for reasons of self-preservation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Inedible

"He says it's inedible" said my front of house manager, as she laid the half-eaten fish and chips in front of me, and instantly I relaxed.  Clearly, I observed, it was edible to some degree. I comped it, because I can't be arsed arguing the toss, and I want to make my front of house's lives as simple as possible. The haddock had been delivered that morning. The fryers had been cleaned that morning. The batter had been made that morning (and it's very good batter, ask me nicely and I'll give you the recipe some time). The fish and chips was identical to the other 27 portions I'd sent out on that lunch service, all of which had come back more or less hoovered up, we have have a (justified, if I do say so myself) very good reputation for our chips. But it was, apparently, "inedible". When it comes to complaints, less is more. If you use a hyperbolic word like that, I'll switch off, you've marked yourself as a rube, a chump, I'm not g...

Chop chop

I was completely ignorant of the fuss over the edited Trump speech in an edition of Panorama until, one moment later, I wasn't. And the reasons for my ignorance are instructive. I had no idea that the story was even brewing until the surprise Sunday night news of the resignations of Tom Davie and Deborah Turness. As I'm sure you are by now aware, this was occasioned by a clumsy edit in an old edition of Panorama, which has already been on the iplayer for a year. It's a non-story. Except people decided to make it a story. The reason I'd heard nothing of it until the resignations was that I'm not on X, where, apparently, it was all the media classes had been talking about for a week. It was an obsession of the unholy right-wing trifecta of the Mail, Telegraph and Times (who, given that they sent a bloke just last week to interview the wrong Bill di Blasio, you'd think would wind their necks in over factual inacccuracy). It was big news on GB news, all self-contain...

Creepy old men

I note, somewhat wearily, that creepy old men are back in the news, being creepy. Creepy old men, and their apologists and enablers, who argue that their creepiness is somehow the natural order of things. Old men would have you believe that it is difficult to not be a creepy old man. That it is a task of epic proportions. It is not that difficult. It is a matter of intention. As yet more of the grimness of Epstein unfolds, creepy old men are, sadly, a flaccid topic once again. Whether it be pursuing students thirty years their junior, or simply not asking too many questions about the background of the probably legal young woman who you've just been introduced to by your good pal Jeff. To be clear, I am not referring to criminal creepy old men, the ones who actually committed statutory rape, the ones who fucked trafficked hirls. That is not something which is allowed to get away merely with the contempt of the observer.  That deserves prison.  No , I'm referring to the hinterla...