I find it fascinating that they're announcing they won't be posting on X anymore, yet at least in the article OP linked, there is absolutely zero mention of where they will be posting.
This makes the announcement itself feel like a disingenuous, politically motivated, anti-X hit piece to me, rather than an informational notice about where people can go to read their content.
If this really is born out of their dedication to 'humanist values, our commitment to press freedom and media pluralism, and our fight against all forms of hatred and discrimination', then why is there no mention at all of where we can go to hear more about these positive values?
> the announcement itself feel like a disingenuous, politically motivated, anti-X hit piece
I don't see how. There is no reason that journalists should feel "grandfathered in" to X because they used Twitter before. Elon Musk has very strong opinions about traditional media that rightfully leaves these employed journalists with little hope for the platform. They could be sharing the best-researched articles on the platform and it would consistently underperform relative to whatever the manufactured outrage is on Trending.
It's just frogs noticing the pot boil. Social media has always been a raw deal for these publishers, and now it's probably a loss leader. Why stay on the platform if it's going to go from "shit" to "flaming shit"?
>There is no reason that journalists should feel "grandfathered in" to X because they used Twitter before. Elon Musk has very strong opinions about traditional media that rightfully leaves these employed journalists with little hope for the platform. They could be sharing the best-researched articles on the platform and it would consistently underperform relative to whatever the manufactured outrage is on Trending.
>It's just frogs noticing the pot boil. Social media has always been a raw deal for these publishers, and now it's probably a loss leader. Why stay on the platform if it's going to go from "shit" to "flaming shit"?
No argument against any of this. If this isn't a hit piece, why is there zero mention of where we can get their content?
This isn't a notice saying they're moving away from platform X and over to platform Y because of reasons A, B, and C, which is what an informational notice for the intended audience (people like me who are interested in reading what EFJ journalists have to say) should include.
This is a piece that's only saying they're moving away from platform X for reasons A, B, and C. That's not useful for conveying where their target audience can go to read EFJ content, it's just a roundabout way of criticising platform X for reasons A, B, and C.
P.S. upvoted your comment after I saw it went gray. Your question appears good faith to me and I really wish we could all stop downvoting good faith and thoughtful responses like yours rather than weaponizing downvotes to suppress ideas and perspectives we don't agree with.
>The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) has announced that it will stop publishing content on Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, from January 20th, 2025, when Donald Trump will officially become the 47th president of the United States.
it’s likely because twitter’s owner has turned extremely political and that makes them uncomfortable.
particularly since he vocally is politically extreme, very vocally. they likely don’t want to put themselves or their work at the mercy of his extreme whims.
If you look at what happened at Twitter in the time before Musk bought it, one could argue that it's already been extremely political - just not on the side the EU would like.
its quite a bit different. Jack Dorsey wasn’t appointed to a government position, he also wasn’t nearly as vocally extreme as twitters current owner.
also, it’s we don’t even have to speculate, the current owner has been very vocal that in addition to directly joining the current administration, he plans to be even more heavily involved in influencing politics around the world.
i can absolutely understand why journalists would want to distance that piece of their toolkit from his platform.
honestly, id be more skeptical of journalists who don’t move to other pastures.
Starting on that day, X will be run by the head of a department of the US federal government.
As they point out, it’s turned into a site full of misinformation and political rhetoric, and Musk decides what’s acceptable.
So, it’ll literally be a government-run propaganda site as of that date. Precedent says the press should not touch it.
State run propaganda sites that target domestic audiences are illegal in the US, so, by law, Musk should be forced to divest, or stop operating X in the US.
Of course, I’m not holding my breath. I don’t expect any member of the Trump administration to obey the law, and I’m sure plenty of people will defend them when they do break it.
"Despite the name, it would not be a federal executive department, which would require an act of Congress to create, instead it will serve as an advisory body operating outside of government. According to CBS News, it may operate under the Federal Advisory Committee Act."
My understanding of Smith-Mundt (including its 2012 revision) is that being an "advisory body" would not meaningfully discharge the group's relationship with the US Government. Calling it a "department" certainly doesn't help the case.
As the sister reply says, Elon isn't going to be the head of a federal department at all. DOGE will just be an "advisory" group (wink, wink). Of course, Trump will probably do whatever they advise him to do as far as cutting things, so it's not that much of a meaningful distinction, but it is a legal distinction which should avoid the legal issue you refer to (Xitter being run by a department head).
I can think of many reasons to stop posting on X, but leaving right when a new president takes office strikes me as odd. If it's about Musk unfairly promoting Trump, why wait? It's already happened after all, even if Musk himself will likely take office from that point onward.
I mean… You can’t see why a journalists’ group might not want to be depending on something run by a foreign government official (the argument that he won’t be a ‘real’ government official, just cosplaying as one, is rather unsatisfactory; that’s just too common a setup in corrupt regimes) for its press releases? Really? Like, this seems obviously undesireable.
I hope reputable news organizations in the US follow this, this assumes there are any left. Many of them are only in it for profits and to provide entertainment instead of actual facts.
Thankfully, we have a system of corporate capture in the US where big government (FCC, in this case) and big business (for-profit media companies, in this case) mutually engage in an incestuous relationship to work against the interests of actual citizens, which is obviously great for everyone.
Sarcasm aside, there really does need to be a cool-off period before government workers enter the private sector, and vice-versa, along with restrictions on corporate lobbying and much more aggressive financial transparency requirements for every member of congress if we ever want to address this problem.
