Week 4: Social media and speed-driven journalism: Expectations and practices
"You can f*** up 150 years'
worth of credibility in ONE Tweet."
So, I know it wasn't necessary but I felt compelled to go out and source for this in addition to adding my own opinion simply because I was curious about what people doing the work feel about it, I hope that's ok. I was intrigued with the first quote of the story:
"Research finds that most news organizations favor speed-driven journalism because they believe that faster updates translate into more eyeballs, which equate more profit”
My initial reaction to the title was to LOL, because journalism has ALWAYS been speed-driven. But, I understand the context now and depending on what the eyeballs are doing, I'm not sure if I agree with the news organizations or not.
More eyeballs doesn't necessarily equal more profit — the business of monetizing news and content has been baffling news organizations for several years now, and especially since the "crumble" began and we really started to feel the pinch when I jumped ship in 2007.
MY opinion — coming from a background that went from journalism STRAIGHT into advertising and marketing, journalists' bane of existence and against all that is good and holy — is that this is a marketing and advertising problem, it's not necessarily a content problem to me. And in theory, more eyeballs DOES make sense. So why isn't it working? Well, it depends on what the eyeballs are DOING.
Icess Fernandez Rojas, a former digital packager /social media person and internationally-published journalist, actually disagrees with me about a couple of things. She believes the content DOES need to change to a degree. Journalism needs to start thinking digital — you don't need a 20 inch story these days for a lot of things — you need a 2 minute video.
She also argues that we're trying to apply an old business model to a new medium. In the olden days, we sold advertising to make money, and yes, the bigger your readership, the more you can charge for advertising and the more advertising you can get. Obviously, a full-page color ad costs significantly more than a black and white quarter page ad.
"We’re putting the old structure into the new digital space, when we really should take this opportunity to think digital. if we based our advertising on space before, then we shouldn’t be basing our advertising on size and location for the digital world -- the digital space is about TIME," Rojas says.
And yes, the early bird gets to scoop. But in order for it to translate into actual dollars, people need to engage, and spend a significant amount of time in order to turn page views into money.
(Sidenote: I AM talking about two different kinds of time - one is about the speed-based journalism, another is about the time readers spend engaging. I'll get back on topic with the next question.)
My initial reaction to the title was to LOL, because journalism has ALWAYS been speed-driven. But, I understand the context now and depending on what the eyeballs are doing, I'm not sure if I agree with the news organizations or not.
More eyeballs doesn't necessarily equal more profit — the business of monetizing news and content has been baffling news organizations for several years now, and especially since the "crumble" began and we really started to feel the pinch when I jumped ship in 2007.
MY opinion — coming from a background that went from journalism STRAIGHT into advertising and marketing, journalists' bane of existence and against all that is good and holy — is that this is a marketing and advertising problem, it's not necessarily a content problem to me. And in theory, more eyeballs DOES make sense. So why isn't it working? Well, it depends on what the eyeballs are DOING.
Icess Fernandez Rojas, a former digital packager /social media person and internationally-published journalist, actually disagrees with me about a couple of things. She believes the content DOES need to change to a degree. Journalism needs to start thinking digital — you don't need a 20 inch story these days for a lot of things — you need a 2 minute video.
She also argues that we're trying to apply an old business model to a new medium. In the olden days, we sold advertising to make money, and yes, the bigger your readership, the more you can charge for advertising and the more advertising you can get. Obviously, a full-page color ad costs significantly more than a black and white quarter page ad.
"We’re putting the old structure into the new digital space, when we really should take this opportunity to think digital. if we based our advertising on space before, then we shouldn’t be basing our advertising on size and location for the digital world -- the digital space is about TIME," Rojas says.
And yes, the early bird gets to scoop. But in order for it to translate into actual dollars, people need to engage, and spend a significant amount of time in order to turn page views into money.
(Sidenote: I AM talking about two different kinds of time - one is about the speed-based journalism, another is about the time readers spend engaging. I'll get back on topic with the next question.)
Does Twitter affect journalists’ speed-driven news work in terms of professional norms, routines, and output?
Yes.
Because again, this digital world is not about space, not about position — it’s about time. Whoever gets it first gets the prize, shares, retweets at the expense of accuracy more often than is comfortable to newsies. But being first, and getting that prize, shares and retweets has sort of become a type of "currency."
If Obama decides he’s going to war with Russia tomorrow, whoever has the news first gets the CURRENCY, even if it’s WRONG. Of course, it being wrong has consequences. I'll get to those later.
If we take a look at the El Chapo story recently, ROLLING STONE got it first. From Sean Penn. An actor. He talked to the most searched felon in the world.
And of course Rolling Stone getting the accolades for getting it first isn't a new concept, back in the olden days of yore we can look at Watergate for example. The Washington Post got it. They're always going to be the newspaper that got it first.
Because again, this digital world is not about space, not about position — it’s about time. Whoever gets it first gets the prize, shares, retweets at the expense of accuracy more often than is comfortable to newsies. But being first, and getting that prize, shares and retweets has sort of become a type of "currency."
If Obama decides he’s going to war with Russia tomorrow, whoever has the news first gets the CURRENCY, even if it’s WRONG. Of course, it being wrong has consequences. I'll get to those later.
If we take a look at the El Chapo story recently, ROLLING STONE got it first. From Sean Penn. An actor. He talked to the most searched felon in the world.
And of course Rolling Stone getting the accolades for getting it first isn't a new concept, back in the olden days of yore we can look at Watergate for example. The Washington Post got it. They're always going to be the newspaper that got it first.
And is normalization observed among national, metropolitan, and local newspapers?
Well, yes and no.Each organization has its own standards — Gannett has its own, McClatchy has its own, Trib has its own, and so on and so on. But a standard across those channels? No. It does not exist, because all of these news organizations are competitors. There hasn't been an effort to unite and create a set of standards.
Remember the old red AP style manual? I feel like the news organizations need one for social media. And this becomes even more complicated when you factor in "citizen journalists." Poynter's database is the closest thing journalism has, but even that needs to become more comprehensive and even better — more widely actually PRACTICED.
How do journalists see Twitter influencing audience reception in terms of news credibility?
I think this is a true chicken and the egg question — myself, and Rojas, would argue that credibility kind of precedes the actual Tweeting. People follow the New York Times, The Guardian, etc. because these might be outlets that they already trusted. BUT there is an enormous consequence to not treating your Tweeting with the same amount of respect as your story itself that Rojas articulated better than I could:
"You can f*** up 150 years' worth of credibility in ONE Tweet."
"You can f*** up 150 years' worth of credibility in ONE Tweet."
Something as innocuous as Tweeting — even under a different account — something about your drink order for the night on a weekend or holiday, starts to make people wonder if you were drunk when you covered that town hall meeting last week. That probably isn't the case, but it's the perception that matters. (Perception of truth and trust being monetized is a whole different topic I could get into with the subject of Content Based Marketing, but I digress.)
And if you're still reading...
This wasn't asked but when it comes to credibility and the truth, I wonder sometimes if making a public, open declaration of an "agenda" factors into trust.According to the LA Times Jorge Ramos is the #1 most trusted figure — not just NEWS figure, but FIGURE — within the Latino community. He, and Univision, have absolutely no qualms about admitting that they DO have an agenda of sorts . Ramos, outside people who actually practice law, is probably the most knowledgable person about our immigration system in the U.S. , and he will readily admit that he and Univision are very pro-immigrant and would like to see a system in which more people win.. And it just is what it is. It's out there. They've admitted it. They've declared it.
That seems to smack everything that the ethics of journalism stood for in the face, BUT, I wonder if putting it out there gives you more "street cred" with readers. Like, if Fox News went ahead and ditched the "fair and balanced" thing, would more people trust them?
–30–
(Sorry, I had to. :^)
==================
Ease of Alteration Creates Woes for Picture Editors
A former collegue of mine (a photojournalist) did his thesis about this very story and these photos about 2 years ago.
This is a perfect example of why I believe there should be more education for "citizen journalists." I get that people are going to do it, but if they are then I think that they should have access to and maybe be required to (how? i have no idea) information or a curriculum that teaches the very basics: what editing is and is not allowed, how to write a cutline, how to cite a source, etc.
I think without that training, much like the writing/blogging of citizen journalists has the possibility to be VERY dangerous. Given what I do for a living, I can clearly see that smoke in the photo has been cloned. It's a pretty sloppy clone job. But that could look very very real to most readers, and seeing unfortunately is still for a lot of people believing.
Not photos, not journalism, but on a parallel — I kind of feel like this manipulation can be used also for just slandering someone or something. Take the Planned Parenthood case recently for example — when everyone thought the footage was truth (even politicians!), there was all kinds of viral stuff about it and all kinds of anger across social media channels. But then they get cleared by court in Houston, and the people who created and doctored footage were indicted. None of that is floating around social media. People saw stuff and they believed it.
But the indictments are another thing that citizen journalists need to be careful about, because photography has a whole bunch of other rules that can get you in hot water if you don't know any better.
I met a very young photographer at a convention once who actually was in college and shot footage of a car being broken into. The photo ran in the school paper and he got in trouble with the law for being associated with the crime (I don't remember the exact legal term he was slapped with). I remember SPJ and a couple of other organizations getting involved because yes, he WAS still in college but he was acting as a photojournalist, which is different from someone simply watching it happen.
And, because journalism requires you to be a fly on the wall, it would have breeched ethics for him to try and stop it or call the cops, which is what I think a citizen journalist would be inclined to do because it just seems like the right thing to do. But then is that still journalism? It's a fuzzy line and slippery slope.
This is a perfect example of why I believe there should be more education for "citizen journalists." I get that people are going to do it, but if they are then I think that they should have access to and maybe be required to (how? i have no idea) information or a curriculum that teaches the very basics: what editing is and is not allowed, how to write a cutline, how to cite a source, etc.
I think without that training, much like the writing/blogging of citizen journalists has the possibility to be VERY dangerous. Given what I do for a living, I can clearly see that smoke in the photo has been cloned. It's a pretty sloppy clone job. But that could look very very real to most readers, and seeing unfortunately is still for a lot of people believing.
Not photos, not journalism, but on a parallel — I kind of feel like this manipulation can be used also for just slandering someone or something. Take the Planned Parenthood case recently for example — when everyone thought the footage was truth (even politicians!), there was all kinds of viral stuff about it and all kinds of anger across social media channels. But then they get cleared by court in Houston, and the people who created and doctored footage were indicted. None of that is floating around social media. People saw stuff and they believed it.
But the indictments are another thing that citizen journalists need to be careful about, because photography has a whole bunch of other rules that can get you in hot water if you don't know any better.
I met a very young photographer at a convention once who actually was in college and shot footage of a car being broken into. The photo ran in the school paper and he got in trouble with the law for being associated with the crime (I don't remember the exact legal term he was slapped with). I remember SPJ and a couple of other organizations getting involved because yes, he WAS still in college but he was acting as a photojournalist, which is different from someone simply watching it happen.
And, because journalism requires you to be a fly on the wall, it would have breeched ethics for him to try and stop it or call the cops, which is what I think a citizen journalist would be inclined to do because it just seems like the right thing to do. But then is that still journalism? It's a fuzzy line and slippery slope.
No comments:
Post a Comment