In an op-ed, in the Christian Science Monitor, “A Nobel Peace Prize for Twitter?” Mark Pfeifle makes the preposterous suggestion that Twitter and its founders be considered as a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.
When traditional journalists were forced to leave [Iran], Twitter became a window for the world to view hope, heroism, and horror. It became the assignment desk, the reporter, and the producer. And because of this, Twitter and its creators are worthy of being considered for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Twitter has been criticized as a time-waster—a way for people to inform their friends about the minutiae of their lives, 140 characters at a time. But in the past month, 140 characters were enough to shine a light on Iranian oppression and elevate.
But just as Twitter helped to get the word out of Iran, it also spread misinformation, writes Joshua Kucera in True/Slant. Its fake reporting aside, Twitter is a mere tool for mass communication, albeit one with a reach that far exceeds that of the newspaper, the radio, and the television. Also, it escapes government censorship.
Still, it’s only a technology.
Coda: I’m freshman Twitter-er. And I’m eager to tweet about anything that isn’t solipsistic. By the same token, I’m not interested in reading an endless stream of 140-character-lifecasts of people I don’t know.
But in principle, even if I were insipid enough to do that, most utterances on Twitter are so intellectually vacuous, grammatically mauled, and creatively bankrupt that they’d drain me.