I don't use Twitter, and your reasoning is a complete non-sequitur.
I don't play golf, and the President plays lots of it. How is that possible? By... my not playing golf.
I don't use Twitter, and your reasoning is a complete non-sequitur.
I don't play golf, and the President plays lots of it. How is that possible? By... my not playing golf.
You can't even conflate the two. Twitter is his method of communicating to us. He doesn't use the media like previous president's.
But will be widely reported in every other media channel anyway, so you lose little or nothing by using Twitter directly. In fact, you might gain a little useful filtering, depending on your range of new outlet choices of course, and conversely there is a sort of reverse filter because you are less likely to miss things that are rather quickly deleted.
You lose the credibility of a primary source.
I guess we all must have forgotten just how bad the reporting was in 2016 with his <1% chance of winning.
I'll take a more direct source than one that is linked through a web of news sites so it's impossible to find the original source. "Experts say"
Twitter whether you like it or not is Trump's primary communication to the US public.
Just because you can get it elsewhere doesn't mean that the source you're getting it from isn't biased one way or another.
Twitter is not a requirement. I don't understand how anyone could possibly think it was, or be insulted by people saying it isn't. It seems like a cack-handed attempt at advertising to insist that everyone must use Twitter.