New Media, Old Problems

As news organizations enter the digital age (some more reluctantly than others), there is a great deal of thought going into the problems of reporting the news online.  It’s great fodder for thinkpieces.  But while the digital world does introduce some new problems for journalists to solve, many of the problems it supposedly creates are really problems that have been at the heart of journalism for decades, if not centuries.

One point Dr. Lee touches on briefly in her article is that the instantaneous nature of the internet leads to extremely speed driven reporting, where sometimes it’s better to report something first than to report something accurately.  But that isn’t exactly a new trend.

This, for example.

Similarly, editors coming to terms with Photoshop and other forms of digital image manipulation are only continuing battles that have been fought for ages.  Reading the New York Times article on photo alteration, you would think that traditional photography was somehow incapable of telling a lie.  But, as Sontag points out in On Photography, the photographed image has always never exactly represented objective truth:

While a painting or a prose description can never be other than a narrowly selective interpretation, a photograph can be treated as a narrowly selective transparency. But despite the presumption of veracity that gives all photographs authority, interest, seductiveness, the work that photographers do is no generic exception to the usually shady commerce between art and truth. Even when photographers are most concerned with mirroring reality, they are still haunted by tacit imperatives of taste and conscience. The immensely gifted members of the Farm Security Administration photographic project of the late 1930s (among them Walker Evans, Dorothea Lange, Ben Shahn, Russell Lee) would take dozens of frontal pictures of one of their sharecropper subjects until satisfied that they had gotten just the right look on film -- the precise expression on the subject's face that supported their own notions about poverty, light, dignity, texture, exploitation, and geometry. In deciding how a picture should look, in preferring one exposure to another, photographers are always imposing standards on their subjects. Although there is a sense in which the camera does indeed capture reality, not just interpret it, photographs are as much an interpretation of the world as paintings and drawings are.

Of course, this doesn’t touch on one of Dr. Lee’s most salient points, and one that I think really is unique to journalism in the digital age – monetization.  While journalistic ethics with regard to speed, accuracy, and bias has always been a subject for debate, never before has the actual cash value of news been negotiable.  People, myself included, expect our news coverage on the internet for free.  And that truly is a huge change.

Week 4: Clash of Traditional and Emerging Values in Digital Journalism

Over the past few years, I (and just about everyone I know) have evolved into a social media junkie. I hadn't really analyzed what I drifted toward or what it indicated about my personal interests. Until I started my week four readings. Sadly, in the course of my evolution, I've detacheded myself from what can be viewed as "traditional" news (newspapers, magazines, evening news programs, and even having one of my car radio presets on NPR) and settled on more sensationalized news. And I've been ok with that.

After reading these articles, I did some ancillary research about speed-driven journalism, and discovered a panel from "Social Media Week" in NYC:  http://socialmediaweek.org/blog/2015/03/real-time-news-mobile-journalism/

As a "leading news platform and worldwide conference that curates and shares the best ideas and insights into social media and technology's impact on business, society, and culture," I thought they would add perspective to the readings.  The first panelist referenced the "llama story" from 2015.  I actually remembered this story, and felt pretty relevant as a result.  But, as the panelist pointed out, is that really news?  Are two happily freed llamas running around at will something I need to know about?  Probably not.

But those are the sorts of stories that populate my Twitter feed.  And my Tumblr, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, etc.  That's what I'm drawn to. (So sad!). When I read the article about Canada's CBS station covering the three shootings in Ottowa so beautifully, I was ashamed that I knew next to nothing of that story.  But I knew about the llamas!

So what constitutes news? And is news the same as current events?  And do current events and/or news trend on Twitter the same way that Kanye West does?  

The dictionary shows the following definition for news:

news¹

—noun (usually used with a singular verb)

1. a report of a recent event; intelligence; information: His family has had no news of his whereabouts for months.
2. the presentation of a report on recent or newevents in a newspaper or other periodical or on radio or television. 
3. such reports taken collectively; information reported: There's good news tonight.
4. a person, thing, or event considered as a choice subject for journalistic treatment; newsworthymaterial. Compare copy (def 5). 

#4 intrigues me.  " ...event...considered as a choice subject for journalistic treatment."  That's completely relative and dependent upon the aim of the journalist.  As one article I found mentioned, the audience of the The Wall Street Journal is going to be interested in different "news" that that of People Magazine.  

Back to my Twitter feed.  I want to be a Wall Street Journal type of user, but the People stories are so much more interesting. My father-in-law's news is informative in a mind-expanding way.  Knowing who was responsible for the shootings in Ottowa and what motivated them demonstrates a greater level of social responsibility and global awareness - in short, a better citizen - than knowing about llamas does.  They don't expand my mind or enable me to carry on an intelligent conversation at a cocktail party, or even with my father-in-law.

So now that I've "followed" several reputable news organization on Twitter, I feel as though I'm being a more responsible citizen.

Response to Readings for Week 4

Social Media and Journalism: 

After reading Dr. Lee’s paper on Social Media and Speed-driven Journalism, I found that her research seems to support my opinion that social media is not saving journalism in the way that it is hyped up to be.  As written in the paper, “the question that news organizations should center on is value creation, not mindless technology or social media adoption (232).” Especially on TV news, you see so much use of flashy graphics and dramatic music. It seems like network news, in some cases, is more concerned with using the latest technology than getting all the details right in their breaking stories. 

I have the same problem with the use of Twitter in some network news. While I suppose I see where the idea might have come from, I don’t think including random viewers’ opinions on the stories of the week (and the newscasters themselves) counts as newsworthy. It seems this functions almost more as a time filler than actual news. While it may engage the handful of users they whose tweets they choose to read, for the most part I think it is just wishful thinking on their part in terms of engaging the audience. Particularly because the newscasters don’t appear to take the segment seriously. They almost look as if they think it is a waste of time or a time filler as well. 

As for the respondents to the survey who used Twitter as a tool to do their job, I think this is the direction that journalism should be going in terms of how it uses social media. Some of the respondents talked about how they used social media as a resource to do research for their stories, like in the example of the murder cases involving local teenagers. In this case, Twitter helped lead journalists to students who knew the victim and alleged murderers and uncover sources and information which could then be verified with the police. This kind of use of social media, as a resource for resource and as a way of monitoring public opinion and developing stories for use in developing one’s own report, I think are valuable. Reading off inflammatory, ungrammatical tweets about the latest hot buttons issues, or worse, the newscaster’s personality, are, on the other hand, not. 

Thoughts on Canadian Reporting of Breaking News

Unfortunately, while there are certainly some journalists that are using social media in this way - in a way that is contributory and valuable - for the most part what we see is the other kind. The flashy, token kind of adaptation of social media.  I think that’s why the differences in Canadian reporting were so shocking to the writers of the article on Kractivism. Certainly there are plenty of journalists in the United States who are on par with Peter Mansbridge, but the fact is that we have become so used to the flashy, dramatic, self-promotion, say-it-now-and-check-the-facts-later approach used in one too many national mainstream media networks like FOX, CNN and NBC that his approach is shocking to us and that is just sad.  For example, I recently watched an interview on FOX with the men who were actually present in Benghazi in 2012 and on whose experience’s the movie 13 hours is based. Throughout the interview, I couldn’t help notice how often the interviewer kept drawing the attention back to herself and FOX news and promoting the network instead of keeping the focus on the story that they were reporting. Even simply as a viewer, this really bothered me.  Especially on a topic such as this, this seems like a time for Mansbridge’s quiet and somber tone. That would have seemed proper. This reporter instead seemed over-eager and almost shamelessly self-promotional.

Reading Response Week Four

A few years ago, Donald Trump Tweeted “I love Twitter…it’s like owning your own newspaper—without the losses.” Since Howard Dean in 2004, politicians have been learning to harness the power of social media. Twitter is an increasingly viable tool for circumventing the mainstream media. Rather than depending on a news organization to share the information they think is important, politicians can now use Twitter to create a new kind of sound bite - the Twitter bite.

To know that if you make enough waves or share information that is compelling enough on Twitter, you can catch the attention of mainstream news outlets, you only have to look to Trump’s digital campaign strategy. 

That journalists can harness the power of Twitter to engage audiences, share more information with a larger audience and simply don’t do so strikes me as being a sort of uncompromising neglectfulness. 

Yes, it’s true that people are always going to need news, but if they aren’t satisfied with what they’re getting from the more mainstream journalistic sources, they can go elsewhere with ease. 

Case in point: Paul Horner. His particular brand of ‘news’ is terrifying. It’s terrifying because there are people out there in the world who take him and others of his ilk at face value. He’s making his success on telling people what they want to hear. Of course, the problem with that is, what they want to hear often coincides more with fairy tale than truth. 

“I don’t know, Google it” is a phrase I utter to my children at least two or three times a day. When I was growing up, the Internet as a household staple was still fairly far up ahead in the distance. If we wanted information, we took ourselves to the library. Another refrain that often follows “Google it” is “There isn’t any reason not to know, the information is there for you to find.” 

Checking your facts is just the smart thing to do. 

In the third quarter of 2015, Twitter had a little over 300 million monthly active users. Facebook, by comparison, boasts over a billion monthly active users. by themselves, these numbers seem pretty self-explanatory. But, factor in the embedded Tweets seen elsewhere on the web, and Twitter sees over a billion unique viewers every month. 

This upward trajectory is what mainstream journalists should note, and take advantage of. Twitter utilization in the upcoming presidential election has given the medium a jumping off point to assert itself as the go-to site for breaking news coverage and real-time interaction with readers and watchers. 

Week 4: Journalism and (not really anymore) emerging media

I suppose I'm guilty of taking journalistic ethics for granted because I've long expected journalists to be...ethical. Don't get me wrong: I've seen the stories of those who lie or manipulate when it comes to reporting, but it's not so often that I think we're in trouble with our news.

What I enjoyed with this collection of articles was that it covered the gamut: from journalists' use of Twitter (how odd and interesting, those findings), to manipulated photos, to checking media ethics, to fake news,  to what so-called responsible journalism actually looks like (i.e. here's how we're doing it wrong, and here's how to do it right). My thoughts after reading them all: this is not your mother's reporting process. And also: maybe there's a little right in all the wrong presented herein.

Let me explain.

1.) In Lee's paper about reporters' use of Twitter, I was most surprised by the finding that journalists "remain unaware of audiences." What, I thought?!? How the heck?!? How's that a little right? Well, they're obviously interacting with each other, going after stories and sources. I can't imagine they're not engaging in other ways, so if they don't use Twitter, necessarily, to do that, who am I to judge? The point is, reporters are still engaging in "new media" (speed journalism for the win...sort of) and taking advantage of other ways in which to pursue the story.

2.) The photo editing, ah. So where's the right in that? Well, granted, there's not a lot. If you're adding/subtracting components for the sack of drama, I'm not going to offer you much sympathy at the loss of your job and reputation. But is lightening or darkening okay? Sharpening? What about the fair point that, really, editing has been happening for many, many years in some form or another. "It's accepted within the industry that you can follow some techniques from the darkroom. The problem is that the technology is there and it's so alluring to go in and take it one step further."  In the digital age, it's simply a heck of a lot easier to say gotcha. Where's the strict line between right and wrong?  I offer this timely story (and its hilarious aftermath) for consideration:
http://petapixel.com/2016/01/29/nikon-awards-prize-to-badly-shopped-photo-hilarity-ensues/.

3.) The Washington Post story about Horner/Bansky (I'd never heard of him before reading this) is my kind of article (as a huge fan of the movie Idiocracy, I connect with this guy.) "My stories always have a point," he says several times. Reflecting on a report he was marrying his dog..."It was just to make fun of the fact that super anti-gay people are like -- 'what's next? A toaster?" The right here (for me) is that without this kind of satire, well, I think we ARE taking ourselves at bit too seriously. Let's step away from this and become human beings again, please and thank you.  

Separately, I'm vexed by virtual reality news op-ed. --> "Our stories can't be virtually true. They must be fully real." There were some thoughtful observations here, about the use of B-roll footage and staged photographs that accompany news stories, though. I look forward to discussing this piece in class, because I'm not entirely sure what virtual reality news is all about, and reading the op-ed didn't provide a lot of insight.

Values Clash in Journalism - Ladson

As a former professional print journalist, the readings for this week made me sad, but the information presented in them was not surprising.

Social Media and Speed-Driven Journalism Response/Outside Connection

I left The Dallas Morning News as reporter in early 2008. At that time, blogging was the most popular social media activity, and reporters were then concerned about how in addition to filing stories, we had to write blog posts and were being trained to shoot and edit video (because that was the trend then, to have reporters who can produce video and vice versa). Since then, other social media platforms have gained prominence, with 30 percent of adults in the United States getting their news through Facebook, according to a study in the Pew Research Center. This reading by Dr. Lee including information about news finding an audience of young, mobile and educated users on Twitter.

I am conflicted in my own values about the information presented. The research presented that journalists have not and do not care nor understand what audiences want; that they differ from consumers on what is important; that journalists prefer public affairs news while audiences don’t; and that journalists seemed to normalize Twitter use; could suggest that there is an air of self-righteousness and self-defeating attitudes. But on the other side, print journalism is built on the idealistic notions of being the fourth branch of government, essentially to keep the government in check, making sure our tax money is spent effectively and is vital to a healthy democracy. While a consumer may not want to know that their government official used tax dollars to fund X,Y or Z illegal habit, it can be argued, maybe self-righteously but I would like to say more nobly, that people need to know that information to not re-elect the government official or to add safeguards to protect taxpayer money from being used to fund said illegal habit.

But, the economic reality of newspapers is that if consumers don’t pay for content, then there won’t be the opportunity to present this crucial information. Unless the economic model changes, the pragmatist in me sides with using research like this reading to encourage leaders in the field to brainstorm news ways to use Twitter and other social media outlets such as Facebook, since as the Pew study indicates, social media is changing the way people get their news.

My other main reaction to the article is what consumer has time to go through multiple reporters’ Twitter feeds about the stories they write? I can see maybe if they want to pass a story idea along. I think individual reporter’s Twitter feeds are probably useful during breaking news events when an audience member may want to know if anyone they know is involved in an event or to know how an incident is playing out, but I care about the news and I don’t have time – information overload.

Tricky Virtual Reality and Ease of Altercation Response/Connection

Among other duties, I still write for a living. But I know that people often pay more attention to the images versus the text that I have deliberately and professionally crafted. So I understand that these articles about images produced by news organizations can greatly impact society and our perceptions of it. These images can create a reality that is not true. For example, the younger generation has likely not seen a magazine cover where the subject has not been Photoshopped, and often not just minor touch ups. While the Aspan article states that the technology to touch up photos has been around for decades, it does seems as if standards for touching up have become more liberal. For example, with more people of color being highlighted in mainstream culture, there are often the associated controversies of magazine editors lightening a person’s skin or “touching up” features to make them look more European. At one point in time, you could trust that news organizations were more likely to present people and reality as it is, so it is encouraging to know that some organizations have acted (fired or reprimanded) when image touchups that have gone too far. But, I do wonder how long that they can keep that up if they have to cater to what audiences want, which seems to be publications with “beautiful” people on the cover.

Canada’s CBS News Coverage Response

This article provided some encouragement about the industry. One theory about the future of traditional media organizations is that they will cater to the elite who can afford to pay for the content. I have to wonder if American audiences were consistently given the opportunity to see this type of coverage - without the hype and that is carefully presented - if they eventually would gravitate towards it. I think it is sad that we don’t get many opportunities to see this type of coverage.

Week 4 Reading Response

SOCIAL MEDIA AND SPEED-DRIVEN JOURNALISM

I'm going to attempt to make an excuse for journalists - perhaps not a very good one but still...

What would effective audience engagement even look like for individual journalists?

In an ideal working environment, should audience engagement even be an individual journalist's responsibility?

Organizations hire social media people to full-time positions because of the work it entails - wading through mentions, following fans of the organization, tweeting individual replies, etc. This is audience engagement and it’s become more than just another responsibility that can be tacked on to a list for someone who already has a full-time job reporting news and all that it entails.

I like that further into this reading, you observe that 

"...social media activities take time to produce and nurture, but none of the newspapers interviewed seemed to offer journalists compensation for taking the time or making the effort to carry out these activities."

I think you hit the nail on the head.

For individual journalists, audience engagement might not even begin until they commit to constantly wading through their mentions on each tweet and following most of their prominent non-journo repliers. I imagine this enterprise would be very difficult for each individual journalist (especially the ones on a national level) to keep up.

A few more questions I had, reading through this study:

How is the DM function of twitter normalized and how does it factor into organizational expectations? Does the private nature of the tool make it hard to normalize or set expectations for?

In addition, I pose the same questions for follows, polls, opening up DMs publicly, retweets, faves, quoted tweets and the “retweets and faves not endorsements” trend for public figures on twitter.

When the reading states that few organizations have successfully gained substantial amount of readers willing to pay for content and lists the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, I immediately wanted to know the average economic status of these publications' reading audiences and how it might affect paying intent.

Lastly, there's an often paraphrased quote that a lie travels around the world before the truth gets a chance to even put its shoes on. I bring this up to ask about what standards, if any, exist for making editorial corrections on twitter.

The publish first, correct later philosophy makes me wonder about what “correct” really means on twitter. What are the rules? In newspapers, from what I know, corrections are acknowledged in footnotes if it’s an online-only article and on the next issue of the publication if it’s a printed piece. What does a “correction” look like on twitter: does it involve deleting an erroneous tweet? Is simply tweeting a correction and an acknowledgement that a previous tweet was made in error enough if the erroneous tweet is still up? Which is the most ethical course of action? 

Twitter has a newly proposed feature that could make tweets editable after they've been posted. How would journalists make use of this feature if it were to eventually be adopted?


THIS IS NOT AN INTERVIEW WITH BANKSY

I checked twitter this morning and the number one trending topic was "El Chapo." I clicked on the topic and I was unsurprised to find that many had fallen yet again for another abcnews.com.co ruse and been led to a story about how El Chapo had escaped yet again from captivity.

As reported in this article, abcnews.com.co has in the past been responsible for many hoax news stories. At some point, you have to wonder if the fault lies with the audience rather than the publishers of said hoax stories.

I frequently visit the AV Club - a sister site of The Onion so I'm pretty partial to The Onion as the reigning champion of news satire but still, I can't fault outfits like abcnews.com.co or The National Report for wanting to capitalize on people's inabilities to see past their biases, even if a lot of the "news stories" that result from it can't truly be categorized as satire.

Many times, I've caught myself laughing at the embarrassment that ensues when reputable news organizations fall for these so-called news sites and I've had to recalibrate because the percentage of my enjoyment of The Onion that relies on checking to see how often people fall for it is very little. In my view, true satire should be funny on its own without people mistaking it as real news. With sites like the National Report, almost all the humor for me stems from how much it manages to constantly embarrass audiences and news organizations that fall for it. I'm not saying it isn't funny but at the same time, I'm not saying it isn't wrong.


EASE OF ALTERCATION CREATES WOES FOR PICTURE EDITORS

As someone with a background in graphic design whose daily work duties involve firing up photoshop every now and then, I have to play just the tiniest violin for all the photojournalists mentioned in this reading to have lost their jobs over becoming too overzealous with their prowess in photoshop.

I'm not a journalist and I know very little about the industry but even I know when you cross the line from enhancing an image for the sake of clarity to out and out deception.

Something I did find interesting in the reading was the passage where it is alluded to that some directors of photography require that their photojournalists inform them on all the alterations they make to the image and why. Working in photoshop for years now, I know fairly well about the "History" panel that lists in order every step you take when working on a file. I'm not advocating for this to be implemented globally but Adobe (the software company that licenses Photoshop) could build a feature off the "History" panel that informs a designated person within an organization whenever certain actions are exerted on an image. They could make the feature available only in editions licensed to news organizations. That designated person would be the director of photography.

Emerging values in digital journalism

The speed of digital media compels news outlets to publish faster than ever, often skipping verification of material. It doesn't need to be the new mainstream reality as the concept of "scooping" a rival organization is outdated. In terms of speed-driven journalism, getting the scoop and publishing first may mean beating the competition by seconds. Being first simply isn't relevant anymore due to the speed digital media transmits. It's a holdover to the days of analog news (traditional print and broadcast). Old habits die hard, which possibly explains why news professionals have a hard time integrating Twitter and other social media.
Reporters climb corporate ladders like in any other industry. The managerial staff and editors of prominent outlets typically come from within the industry's ranks. They've worked in the industry a long time, establishing habits from when news was a one-way communication from publisher to consumer. Teaching journalists how to use social media is like the stereotype of trying to teach the elderly how to use computers, difficult but not impossible.
There is something to be said for reporter's preferences for public affairs stories. If they only reported what consumers wanted, I imagine there'd be a lot more stories about the Kardashians than the new laws enacted by legislatures. Like medicines, public affairs coverage may not always taste good but is often necessary.
Why do journalists predominantly Tweet with other journalists? I don't think that question is hard to answer. Like all SMS, communities form around people with similar interests. Why not create a study looking into why consumers don't interact with the news outlets? It's a two-way street. Dismissal audience desires can't be entirely journalism's fault.

The bulk of this weeks reading concerns ethical practices within digital journalism. The U.S. Constitution is a living document designed to allow changes as times dictate, but not without thorough examination. Journalism ethical codes should be looked at the same way. The Society of Professional Journalists recently published revised ethics codes. The revision process began in 2013, fairly late considering how much has changed in the past 20 years.
New SPJ Code of Ethics
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode-revision.asp

As stated above, speed-driven journalism still needs to verify sources. Getting the scoop is an obsolete practice. As the "This is not an interview with Bansky" illustrates, verification remains extremely relevant. It's a misconception that speed and accuracy are mutually exclusive. It's possible to verify digital sources quickly and cheaply.

TED Talk - Markham Nolan: How to separate fact and fiction onlinehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNV4yIyXXX0

International Journalists' Network - 11 Tools for verification and fact checking in 2016
https://ijnet.org/en/blog/11-tools-verification-and-fact-checking-2016

The ease of manipulating digital media creates many credibility issues. Brian Walski, the LA Times photographer mentioned in the NY Times article "Ease of alteration creates woes for picture editors" ruined his career by altering his Iraq photo. Good. He deserved to be fired for deceiving the public. After the scandal, Walski moved to Colorado and started a commercial/wedding photography business.
The problem with this kind of deception is first impressions. Even if a correction is made, people remember their first impression more than the subsequent correction, if they even know of the correction. Walski and Paul Horner dangerously influence public opinion with mis-information. The motive is irrelevant in this case. The outcome takes precedence. Remember the controversy over "native-advertising" in digital news? If consumers become upset of dirty advertising practices, why not become outraged by actions taken by Walski and Horner? Remember the two-way street of audience interaction?
John Oliver Clip - Native Advertising
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_F5GxCwizc

The project outlined in "You can now search through more than 400 media ethics codes" is interesting. I'm glad they point out it's a work-in-progress. As more content appears on the site, I think it will grow in value. In the past, understanding foreign journalism standards didn't matter much for the general American consumer. But we now live in a global digitized world. The need for global ethics standards continuously grows because U.S. consumers access news from around the world. Of course, it's difficult enough for us to agree to ethics within our own country. Quick searching "United States" under codes of ethics on the Accountable Journalism
website returns 30 matches. Only three directly relate to the U.S. One is a pdf of "The Bill of Rights," the second lists the Media Council's code of ethics (which ends with respecting Zambian society specifically for some reason) and the 1962 Standards of Practice from the American Association of Advertising Agencies. Why so little information on ethics at home?

I completely agree with Mark Joyella's piece on Canada's CBC broadcast. Our news broadcasters should do more reporting like this, but don't. Why is that? Is it consumer demand that turned news into entertainment or is infotainment the norm because of assumptions made by producers? Is it advertising pressure or political zealots like Roger Ailes? Is everyone to blame, or does that matter? The real question is how do we identify and then fix the problem. I realize funding is a major problem for news producers, but it's not the only problem. What else can be done?

In closing, watch this clip from the film Good Night and Good Luck. Actor David Strathairn performs a 1958 speech by Edward R. Murrow for the film's opening. Believe me, the entire film is worth viewing if time permits.
Good Night and Good Luck - Lights in a box speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cfwsfGqgPM
   

Wk. 4 - This is not an interview with Banksy & The Tricky Terrain of VR

This is Not an Interview With Banksy

This article was fascinating. On multiple occasions I have seen friends on Facebook share wild stories that seem fabricated and I’ve even seen some friends share articles from obviously fake site. What is interesting is how easily fake news can be disguised and presented to seem real. I think that Horner’s work shows how easily people can be fooled and how fast news can spread on the Internet these days with the explosion of social media sites. Before social media, people got their news from newspapers, magazines, neighbors, TV broadcasts, etc. but now people can check Facebook or Twitter and get all kinds of news updates and stories from not only their city but all over the world.

Horner’s fake news brings to light how easily people will believe things they read or see on the Internet. We tend to just look at one source and take it as is rather than checking other sites or finding other sources to confirm or deny the news story. His fake news also brought out prejudices and showed how they can spread fast depending on the reader’s views of certain people groups or political standing. Dr. Guadagno did a study on why videos go viral. Her research showed that videos that bring out anger are more likely to be shared. Horner definitely plays on people’s emotional responses to his articles, which results in sharing the article on Facebook or other social media sites.

The Tricky Terrain of Virtual Reality

Just like with writing, videos and photographs are never void of the perspective and bias of the photographer or cameraman. Getting true to reality imagery or videos is a challenge that journalism will always face. The issue of honest imagery has become even more concerning with the invention of photo editing software. It is quite easy to adjust an image in Photoshop so that the image omits a few details that then make the image not so honest. This is what I love most about photography- a photo’s ability to show the reality we choose.

It is good to see that the New York Times is taking these issues seriously and that they are working through the ethical questions. As VR and AR technology continue to grow and expand into our lives, it will be detrimental to ensure that the imagery being shown is as unbiased as possible.

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.)

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.

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."

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.