> The media love twitter though. They hate it so much they can't stop talking about it

It's newsworthy. It's a leading social network which a billionaire was forced to purchase after trying to weasel himself out of the deal which he got into for dubious reasons, and now said billionaire is doing a corporate anihialation speedrun that threatens to evaporate 45 billion dollars.

Not to mention the impact on other notorious companies such as Tesla and SpaceX.

You require a massively disingenuous take on current events to come up to the conclusion that news coverage of Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter can only be explained in terms of irrational hate.

Twitter is ranking #15 in social networks, but all the journalists are on it so it's all you hear about. The media (specifically, TV) chose to prop up twitter, and they can bring it down too.

CBS has stopped using Twitter.

The Media listen to their customers no matter what. When they found that they got more eyeballs and revenue by talking about a certain former president, they covered him more.

If you say Twitter and Elon you're going to get more clicks than if you were to say YCombinator and Paul Graham even though the later two are vastly more important and educational for me.

are people really interested in elon's buyout? would be interesting to see if those stories are really popular. but journalists are on twitter all day, so naturally they write about it more

https://www.nytimes.com/trending/

I don't have the metrics. Maybe the journalists are on twitter all day, usually they have metrics that they have to hit.

It's awful. You often can't contact journalists or podcasters except on Twitter, which was one of my only use cases for it (that, and yelling at companies). The media constantly pretended like Twitter represented the average person, when it really represented the specific niche of people who like to play the attention game (being an expert, following experts, gathering a following).