Skimming this was confounding for me because I guess I don't really understand what journalists (or at least whoever this article is counting as journalists) think Twitter was for and what its replacement should have?
Or maybe I do, and I'm just kinda horrified at it, because from what I can tell the Ideal Journalism & News Social Media Site is a site where hundreds of millions of people are all having a conversation about a single topic at a time, and journalism is simply jockeying to be the person who posts an article introducing The Next Big Topic. This is roughly equivalent to the fifth circle of hell in Dante's Inferno.
(I'm being dismissive for fun but I do genuinely think I'm missing some more nuanced understanding of "social media for journalism" and why it's important beyond the straightforward needs of getting eyes and "engagement" on your work. I suspect journalist-to-journalist interactions may be important?)
