As always, ensco, great comments, thoughts on and contribution towards the argument.
JoesphNdo and Redcoe15 your comments are welcomed and appreciated also. I get it. As Michelle Wolf suggests, 'social media has made every opinion valuable, especially if it causes a controversy, like right now it's Tweets and Instagram, but before that it was Blogs and before that it was Manifestos. I personally love Manifestos, because you know when someone writes one of them, they're F-crazy. And that's all your Tweets are. Your Tweets are just tiny manifestos. And you know what Blogs are, right? Blogs are a conversation no one wanted to have with you'.
I essentially disagree with none of you. Yet, I'll be everyone's huckleberry. I do have contextual hesitations; find it challenging to not ever consider just because it is solely breaking from a random account. Even with a self-awareness that in 90+% of such instances, Twitter is nonsense.
My narrow perspective and limited knowledge has me thinking the notions/positions that 'The Medium Is The Message', as well as, 'if journalism is an evolving process we may all now be craftsmen and the New-New Journalism is upon us'. I respect the disdain many have for Twitter; deserving, sure. I understand there are only handfuls of 'credible' football journos; sigh. Furthermore, I would suggest an ability to intelligently deduct from social media relevant delineations, markers, signals, still persists. I also realize knowing how to read those tea leaves, that execution, happens with time and experience; helps build one's integrity. Either when applied to a source or oneself. But, we finds ourselves in an 'instant' age, however wrong, one must accept and live within these realities of that current media landscape; the paradigm shift media-communication and journalism is experiencing. The apparent micro vs macro implications of that democratization to the lowest common denominator. And apart from the Typesetting vs. Computer Graphic Programming schism, now the 60Minutes to VICE to Citizen issue. Obviously the challenge is to learn to discern within any segment, without foolishly ignoring or outright dismissing. However, the supposition still needs to be acknowledged that stories are not always/only broke by the credible, that sometimes they are now just reaffirmed or carried forward with such a brand/seal of integrity by the credible from kernels of the not so credible. That such sources are even used as shortcuts/leads by some in this changed profession to identify, focus and even comment upon potential or emerging stories; to create or add content.
I am not ready yet to throw away the baby with the bath water of Citizen, Alternative, and Participatory Journalism/Media. IDK, I feel what is 'credible' enough in instances is subjective for many.
Would Conner Fleming of The18 be credible? While he dismiss tweets in general, as well as, the tweet in question, he still finds time to comment and agree with it's assertion while conveniently implying Apple would still not be worried.
https://the18.com/soccer-news/mls-ap...ass-cost-total
Or perhaps even World Soccer Talk which also comments on the matter?