A few journalistic entities like @TexasObserver and @damemagazine have discovered that there's an audience for their work on the Fediverse.

And individual journalists like @jeffjarvis have become esteemed members of the community here.

But to most journalists, when they see the Fediverse, they see that no Blue Check status is given out -- which means they have to start from the bottom like everyone else.

They don't like that.

As for why journalists find Blue Check so compelling, think about it. What's the pull for modern journalism?

It's not pay, I can tell you that much. For many nowadays, journalism pays barely above subsistence wages.

But journalism still conveys a certain amount of respectability, especially with culture.

And Twitter's Blue Check gave journalists the same respectability as politicians and rock stars.

If Twitter deemed you "notable", you got a blue check.

To be objective about Twitter is to acknowledge that it's quickly losing its cultural cachet.

What made the old Blue Check system so compelling is that no one could buy it. Twitter awarded it to you. It was an acknowledgement that you were important.

But if someone can buy the Blue Check, the Blue Check loses its value.

What's more, "legacy" Blue Checks are about to go away.

Journalists are about to lose their social status -- even if they pay.

I suspect that once the legacy Blue Check goes away, there will be many journalists who will still do everything they can to keep Twitter relevant.

Yes, the stats are a lie, and "reach" should be taken with a grain of salt. Few people click to articles from Twitter. Elon Musk, himself, views journalists with contempt.

And yet, many journalists will continue to use Twitter because giving up perceived social status is scary.

Personally, I believe journalism is still an important profession.

But I also think there's a big difference between investigative journalism that holds the rich and powerful to account, and bootlickers who will do anything for access to the rich and powerful.

More and more, Twitter is becoming the domain of bootlickers.

Nothing proves this more than the 💩 emoji that Twitter auto-replies to press inquiries.

There will come a day -- probably not now -- where journalists will be *forced* to leave Twitter.

That is, if they want to maintain their social status.

Now I'm not a journalist. I'm just a tech worker who's viewing this farce from the outside.

There's not a day that goes by where I don't wonder what kind of indignities journalists will continue to suffer in order to keep Twitter a going concern.

I will say this much, though.

Every day that journalists stay on Twitter and refuse to join the Fediverse is a day they're not impacting the ongoing development of the Fediverse.

Which is something I know that a whole lot of journalists will eventually regret.

Is it better to be a leader or a follower? When it comes to social media, few journalists are being leaders.

Now I want to highlight a bunch of journalists who actually are being leaders in the domain of social media: @TexasObserver

The weren't just one of the first publications to join the Fediverse, but the first to start their own server too.

A few weeks ago, the organization was nearly shut down due to lack of funding.

But here again, they became innovators by using the Fediverse to crowdfund -- and thus save -- @TexasObserver.

In doing this, they may have validated a new model for funding!