Maggie Haberman Twitter

Maggie Haberman Twitter
Maggie Haberman Twitter Account
Elizabeth Cronise Mclaughlin Twitter
George Conway Twitter

Maggie Lindsy Haberman (born October 30, 1973) is an American journalist. She is a White House correspondent for The New York Times and a political analyst for CNN.She previously worked as a political reporter for The New York Post, the New York Daily News, and Politico. — Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) August 7, 2019 If that’s genuinely what you believe, and not something that might appeal to folks on Twitter, I am more than happy to continue offline where it’s a more productive discussion. You let me know. — Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) August 7, 2019.

The New York Times is calling out Twitter and Twitter's CEO has some thoughts.

New York Times journalist Maggie Haberman wrote about why she's taking a break from Twitter on Friday, including a laundry list of reasonable examples explaining why the app has become an unbearable experience for her and others. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey hit back with his own take on the situation in a multi-part thread.

SEE ALSO: Seth Rogen calls out Twitter's Jack Dorsey for the platform's white supremacist problem

In Haberman's analysis, she describes how Twitter has gotten worse and worse in many regards over the years, developing into an unreliable source filled with toxic interactions and vitriol. Much of her overarching criticism is boiled down in these two paragraphs:

The viciousness, toxic partisan anger, intellectual dishonesty, motive-questioning and sexism are at all-time highs, with no end in sight. It is a place where people who are understandably upset about any number of things go to feed their anger, where the underbelly of free speech is at its most bilious.

Twitter is now an anger video game for many users. It is the only platform on which people feel free to say things they’d never say to someone’s face. For me, it had become an enormous and pointless drain on my time and mental energy.

She doesn't stop there though, and Dorsey took some time on Saturday to respond to specific points that Haberman made in a thread, ignoring the chunk above and focusing on other, less-damning points.

In his first tweet, Dorsey picked out a quote where Haberman said people were tweeting more and she felt she had to check in more frequently lest she miss something.

“But the medium has changed. Everyone I follow on the site seems to be tweeting more frequently, so I had to check in more frequently.”
This is the intention behind ranking the timeline. Show you “what matters” first, everything else still accessible. Lots of work still to do.

— jack (@jack) July 21, 2018

Dorsey's response was that this is why the 'show me the best tweets first' feature exists, a feature that is hated by many users.

Dorsey then cherry-picked another part of Haberman's piece that said Twitter is still an important source for news, which Dorsey of course agreed on, and then had a vaguely self-deprecating response to a quote in which Haberman said Twitter is not a good platform to have meaningful discussions.

Fundamentally, we need to focus more on the conversational dynamics within Twitter. We haven’t paid enough consistent attention here. Better organization, more context, helping to identify credibility, ease of use.
Challenging work and would love to hear your thoughts and ideas.

— jack (@jack) July 21, 2018

It kind of sounds like Dorsey wants to fix Twitter so people don't have meaningful discussions on there, which honestly sounds kind of great. Imagine if Twitter was just dumb jokes and a fun, non-stressful place to hang out all the time.

Throughout his thread, Dorsey brings up 'identifying credibility' a couple times, which may refer to changing how the verification system works so it's not just for prominent names, people in media, and white supremacists, or maybe being more selective.

Of course, Twitter's penchant for verifying white supremacists and Nazis simply because they are 'public figures' has long drawn criticism from people who aren't white supremacists and Nazis.

Ban the Nazis, it's not hard

— Cox🌹Box (@Cox_Box_Tornado) July 21, 2018

Ultimately, it seems that Dorsey thinks minimizing certain voices is an important part of making Twitter better. In some cases, like with bots, racists, sexists, and homophobes, this may actually be very helpful for decent people who are getting worn out by Twitter, but Dorsey doesn't really elaborate on who he's referring to.

Of course that's easier said than done, considering how many of these accounts exist on the platform, but Twitter is actively working to at least get rid of bot accounts and inactive accounts.

But Dorsey's responses to Haberman's article weren't the most helpful thing in the world, and they perhaps inadvertently underline the fact that meaningful conversations really can't work well on Twitter.

Texas Congressman Joaquin Castro tweeted a list of people in his district who donated the maximum allowable contribution to President Putinpoodle's 2020 campaign. This is information that is already public. Anyone with a Google machine or a library can get this information. Rep. Castro simply tweeted the information so that people would be able to have it. You know, just in case they wanted to use it in their money-spending decisions.

Constituent services taken to a whole new level, apparently => https://t.co/vGDGDl0l2i

— David M. Drucker (@DavidMDrucker) August 6, 2019

Cue the all-access Princess of the Fourth Estate, Maggie Haberman going weak at the knees, a tear-drop forming in the corner of her eye, her lip quivering in a determined and protective grimace, her tiny, delicate, smooth-skinned hand forming a fist at her curvaceous, yet fat-free hip... (Sorry. Channeling Maureen But-My-Dad-Was-A-Police-Officer Dowd for a sec.)

Don't want to RT this because I don't want to put these people's names in my feed but this is dangerous, by any campaign.

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) August 6, 2019

Okay, maybe my description of her is over the top. But maybe so is her calling this 'dangerous.' In fact, maybe she's even being a f*cking hypocrite.

Maybe? No, definitely. Here comes Joy Reid to set the record straight.

What am I missing? This is public information via the FEC. Also, the NYT has done these stories disclosing donors to presidential candidates, like this one: https://t.co/bCbA3kfaCr

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) August 7, 2019

Are Trump donors entitled to some special secrecy that Clinton donors are not?

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) August 7, 2019

Oh, now, Maggie is being ATTACKED I TELL YOU and, she must put Joy IN HER PLACE!

Joy, do you honestly believe that’s what anyone here is saying? Truly asking.

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) August 7, 2019

If that’s genuinely what you believe, and not something that might appeal to folks on Twitter, I am more than happy to continue offline where it’s a more productive discussion. You let me know.

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) August 7, 2019

Joy stands her solid ground. Princess Maggathah feigns innocence and ignorance.

I’m trying to figure out why disclosing businesses / business owners who donated to Trump is any different from the Times uncovering who donated to the Clinton Foundation, when the implication of the latter was some sort of impropriety.

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) August 7, 2019

I guess I missed where in the disclosure list in the NYT it had an aspect aimed at ostracizing? Where did it do that?

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) August 7, 2019

In rides Grant Stern on his horse, shoring up Joy's argument and ripping off Fair Maggathah's veil of righteousness:

Here's Exhibit A in the Times' ostracization campaign.
Mainstream credibility for a story aimed at demonizing the Clinton Foundation donors to a charity never accused of a single, credible allegation of wrongdoing.https://t.co/SoIkEiTMhv