What is it with "tweeted"?

[Workingman]

There was a time when people 'said' things and were reported as having said them - that was it. Nowadays they 'tweeted' and what they 'tweeted' is reported verbatim, often followed by a screen shot of the original tweet, which adds absolutely nothing.

I am wondering if there is a copyright - and a cost - issue here. If someone says something using Twitter as the platform then it must be mentioned in some way - a tweet, tweeted etc. If that is the case then those in officialdom - MPs, councillors, the police, fire service, etc should revert back to normal channels and make official announcements.

[TheOstrich]

I think there certainly is a copyright issue over "use" - most people have got into the habit now of referencing their internet sources or crediting the ownership of internet images they reuse. Too many potential litigation minefields out there in this day and age, and too many rumours repeated as fact that turn out not to be true.

[Suff]

Reporters spend much of their time trawling Twitter for "news". When they report this "news", they have to add the provenance. For Twitter, because you can delete tweets then deny, they use a screenshot of the active tweet at the time.

This way they avoid spurious litigation. As a screenshot with date and time can be tracked and the "deletion" can be validated if court action is initiated, taking the screenshot is simple insurance and standard practise.

It is a sad confirmation of the world we live in. Bleat, retract, lie. It has been going on forever but now the bleaters can be challenged on their lies.

The rest of us just have to live with it.