"With so much uncertainty surrounding the perpetually changing News Feed algorithm, it appears that buying paid distribution is the only way to guarantee that you’ll hit your engagement goals. That isn’t all bad news since Facebook is the most effective content distribution platform available today. But if you want people to see your content, one thing is clear—you’re going to have to pay to play."
"People demanded fairness from their local paper because it may have been their only local paper; people were sensitive to bias in network news because it was one of a few options providing a relatively scarce type of information. Their audiences afforded them powers: to talk to the powerful, to dedicate resources to investigations, to collect and summarize the news. These powers created a sense of obligation which, of course, they were free to fail to meet. On an internet of platforms, this “conceptual space” hasn’t disappeared, it’s just moved. It now belongs to Facebook and Twitter and Instagram."
I find the rush to establish a narrative around something horrific both understandable and deeply worrying, because news events don't tend to have the Hollywood Ending, and facts get edited by the masses (and media in many cases) to give the desired outcome. This article is an excellent read on the subject.
I love this idea of an Instagram takeover. Want to try this out so much. "our #VQRTrueStory project, a social-media experiment in nonfiction that delivers stories across platforms. Each week, a contributor takes over our Instagram feed, @vqreview, to post original dispatches that tell the stories behind the pictures"
This is mine: "24. Colleagues who reply all to emails." BURN.
Seriously, Sophie Gadd has written a hymn to office workers here - I cannot recommend it enough,
This is one of the most chilling things I've seen a journalist write about the job. I feel lucky that my career has never meant I've become numb to horror.
"The routine nature of gun violence is quashing our ability to feel. It means nothing, or almost nothing, to those outside the immediate bubble of the victims. The sheer volume makes these cases difficult to keep track of. The names of countless victims bleed into one another. The shooters only grab our attention if they do something new, like open fire at an elementary school or post a first person video."
This is Part I; it's well worth a read.
"I need people who can make good decisions without tilting it toward the forms they learned on, or the skills they identify themselves with. Some very good editors can’t do that. Some very good writers can’t do that. Anyway, that’s what I need.”"
Really compelling reasons for making evergreen content a staple part of newsroom output.
Now *here's* a can of worms. The world of Journalism can't even decide whether we should or should not moderate behaviour when approaching eye witnesses to traumatic situations via social media. Good luck with trying to get a sensible discussion around how to cover/not cover the actions of a This is a good read and asks valid questions. I'm just not sure anyone wants to answer them.
"If a person seeks to become a celebrity through murder, some argue, the best course of action is to deny them that attention. Don’t publish killers’ manifestos or suicide notes. Unless a suspect is at large, withhold, minimize, or delay publication of shooters’ names and images.
Some of these recommendations clash with a reporter’s most fundamental instincts, and intrude on information long considered within the public’s right to know. Personally, I can think of several occasions as a journalist when I’ve violated these recommendations myself.
But there is compelling evidence that when media coverage inspires copycat deaths, well-considered guidelines can reverse that trend."
“We have to treat comments as content,” Etim said. “We can’t cede the social world to large companies.”
ICYMI, Trinity Mirror Regionals is about to introduce a new structure/culture for its newsrooms, including audience goals. This has generated a lot of heat from various people who have gone straight to Defcom One without understanding the details. This, by David Higgerson, endeavours to pierce the fog of suspicion and misinformation... "Journalism has changed. It can't just be about shouting for attention. Readers expect to be listened to, and their views taken into account. The right use of audience data enables that to happen every day."
Just a brilliant read - highly recommended, and thought-provoking. FWIW, I could never do this - I like following people - but I started using lists far more aggressively several months ago, and it's made an enormous difference to the content I see every day. Also my Tweetdeck columns are essential. "I decided to unfollow everyone. Yes, everyone. No exceptions. From one day to another. And instead of relying on a combination of Twitter Lists and my home timeline, which is what I have been doing for years already, I decided to be brave enough and see whether I could survive just with Twitter Lists and following zero people and witness, first hand, whether the conversations moved elsewhere. Or not. Eventually, I wanted to see how disruptive such bold move would be like on how we use Twitter today."
How BuzzFeed, The Economist, The New York Times, Quartz, Vox, and Yahoo News slim down a day’s worth of news into manageable forms.
Saw this, thought of Facebook's Instant Articles.
"Platforms can create revenue models where a CMS cannot...any such platform solves problems with the open, flat, flexible common standard by moving it into a richer, more powerful and sophisticated but also in some sense closed and proprietary place. "
I tweeted this as being applicable will the word 'students' removed, and the horrific conduct by certain publications and individuals following the WDBJ7 shootings makes me only more entrenched in that point of view.
"Mergers by themselves won’t save the local newspaper industry, but thoughtful consolidation, a commitment to quality long-term planning and the adoption of new ways of working, along with an acceptance that the old days of bounty are gone for good, will certainly bode well."
Just an amazing piece of journalism. Recommended reading.
This is fascinating and I'd love to see it happen.
"A Google research team is adapting that model to measure the trustworthiness of a page, rather than its reputation across the web. Instead of counting incoming links, the system – which is not yet live – counts the number of incorrect facts within a page. “A source that has few false facts is considered to be trustworthy,” says the team (arxiv.org/abs/1502.03519v1). The score they compute for each page is its Knowledge-Based Trust score."