Apparently Twitter has become the new site for grown individuals to start lashing out on each other. At least that was the case in Nevada, where two forum candidates Harry Reid and Sharron Angle began attacking one another. A scuffle broke out at a candidate forum in Nevada last week (September 27th) and the argument presented its way to Twitter. The argument came about when Reid who attended the forum via video questioned Angle’s character. “Beyond her extreme and dangerous agenda for Nevada, Angle has said many things that cause reasonable people to literally question her sanity and whether or not Angle knows the difference between the pathological things that escape her mouth and objective reality - and this may take the cake.” Verbal hell broke loose after this.
It is always comical to watch two grown individuals argue amongst each other, but to read two grown individuals arguing over Twitter…. Sounds like “Mean Girls” all over again just the elderly edition. I mean I’ve never attempted to run for Senate, but shouldn’t these candidates focus on their campaign, or maybe spend some time with their family? Personally, I think it’s childish drama and immature, but hey, good thing they aren’t representing New York, right? Sharron Angle tweeted “Harry Reid’s plan to save the Nevada economy: coked-up stimulus monkey.” First off, I find it completely unacceptable to relate such an illicit drug to such a beautiful primate and secondly, where do people come up with these phrases? (It is witty though). The real meaning behind it had to do with the stimulus package and how it’d be used. It mocked the real use of stimulus money to study the effects of illicit drugs on primates. These two candidates haven’t backed down. Many of their recent tweets contain ‘hashtags’ (# attached to the message) where Twitter users who click on them will be taken to a feed of anti-Reid/Angle tweets.
In retrospect Tweeting is very effective because when it comes down to it, it’s free. Who’d be willing to pay for immaturity anyways? It’s also fairly simple to change a campaign in a matter of words rather then sentences. It’s effective for people who are on the go and do not have a lot of time to read lengthy in depth articles. Trying to express a point of view in under 140 characters can lead a person to believe more than one idea. Can 140 characters of Tweeting be that effective though?
Sarah Palin has over 250,000 Twitter followers; with one tweet she can generate traditional media headlines. I’m fortunate enough when three people like my status on Facebook. Journalists thrive off these tweets, they are paid to follow anindividuals every tweet and use them in stories. Are newspapers just going to be articles full of tweets with more pointless information than they already contain? “Sarah Palin just bought a new pair of shoes!”
It’s absurd to believe that this is what media has come to. Just the other day I remember blogs being a place where people expressed their emotions, wrote poems, and song lyrics. Now it is one of the main centers of politics.
