[sieabahlpark]

What the president says on Twitter affects me or the world, whether or not he uses a 9 iron or a driver to get the ball out of the sand trap does not.

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.

[dspillett]

> What the president says on Twitter affects me or the world

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.

[blackflame7000]

"so you lose little or nothing by using Twitter directly"

You lose the credibility of a primary source.

[dspillett]

Twitter is not credible as a primary source to start with, tweets are routinely removed when people don't get the reaction they wanted.

[sieabahlpark]

There's no harm in combining outlets but the media has historically skewed what they report for ratings. It's a business like every other.

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.

[dantillberg]

I don't use Twitter, yet I still hear what the President says on Twitter.

[sieabahlpark]

Anecdotal evidence doesn't exactly sway my opinion all that strong.

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.