Wednesday, 28 September 2016

Story on tough journalism


A Farewell Guide to Political Journalism

Lessons gleaned from 30 years of covering American politics—from Bill Clinton to Donald Trump

I left political journalism once before—to help launch a social media site designed to engage political influencers in civil conversation. It failed (one critic called it “the idiotic Hotsoup.com”), but among the many lessons I took away from the experience was one about journalism.
In a meeting just before the site launched, my business partners—six of the smartest, most successful political consultants in Washington—debated which reporter would be given an interview announcing our venture.

I mentioned a particular journalist known to be an easy mark inside the White Houses of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Afraid of confrontation, eager to please, and lazy, this reporter printed whatever minor bits of news and color aides fed him, without skepticism or criticism. I didn’t respect the guy. Nor did most other reporters forced to compete against a patsy who benefited from a policy of mutual-assured promotion.
“He’ll gobble up what we feed him,” I told my partners.

One groaned. Another winced and said, “Yes, but nobody will buy it. Nobody respects him. They’ll know it’s just a press release.”
Until that moment, I assumed the people we covered in politics valued pushover journalists. I thought this particular reporter got ahead by going along. That might be true on the small stories, but not for the stuff that matters.
One of my partners asked about a Washington Post political correspondent known for his tough, insightful coverage. “You think Dan Balz would buy this?”
“I don’t know,” said another. “But if Balz loves Hotsoup, we’re golden. If he hates it, we’re toast.”
Balz never did write about the project, and we were toast. But I left the meeting knowing that if I ever returned to journalism, I didn’t want to be taken for granted liked the first reporter. I wanted to inspire in my sources what Balz had earned from my partners—respect and fear.

Tweet by Christiane Amanpour on Twitter

,
,
,
,

giants causway age controversy

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=giants+causway+age+controversy&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB707GB707&oq=giants+causway+age+controversy&aqs=chrome..69i57.15025j0j7&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

https://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/11072012-controversy-over-creationism-at-giants-causeway

Giants’ Causeway Interpretive Centre: “This is, as far as we are aware, a first for the National Trust anywhere in the UK, and it sets a precedent for others to follow…”


Monday, 26 September 2016

Dean Baquet Doesn’t Think Donald Trump Is the Media’s Fault

The New York Times executive editor on the challenges of covering the candidate and how the paper decided to call him a liar.




He’s been hugely challenging. I don’t think we’ve ever had somebody who in my time as a journalist so openly lies, and that was a word that we struggled to actually utter. We’re used to, I think as journalists, we’re used to philosophical debates, like one party thinks we should go to war on Iraq, makes its case—exaggerates its case, we now know. But there are warring philosophies. I’ve never quite seen anything like [Trump], and I think it’s a real challenge for us

A short guide to crowdfunding journalism

Seven lessons from our world record breaking campaign with De Correspondent

In the spring of 2013, we raised 1.7M dollars with a crowdfunding campaign for our Dutch journalism platform De Correspondent. Two years later, we still receive invitations from conferences, students and journalists to talk about how we did it.
We feel flattered by these requests. Yet we’re way too busy with our current challenges to honor them all. Our goal of growing our member base to 50,000 requires all our attention.
But De Correspondent wouldn’t exist without our 18,933 crowdfunding backers. That’s why we wrote this guide to journalism crowdfunding. In the hope it might even inspire you to start your own campaign.


Jay Roeen on NYT, Twitter and opinion

Yesterday the New York Times editor for standards sent out a memo warning all newsroom staff to be careful about ever expressing an opinion about the election. In its way it is an extraordinary document, dictating the terms of self-censorship for Times journalists.
Among the claims it makes: You may think your Facebook page is your space, but you're wrong. ("Everything we do in public is likely to be associated with The Times.") Even if your work at the Times has nothing to do with political coverage you carry the political responsibility to remain publicly neutral. And, most extraordinary to me, even your sharing and linking actions on social media are danger zones. Here's the memo:
http://www.nytimes.com/…/liz-spayd-new-york-times-public-ed…
Listen to what it says: "If you are linking to other sources, aim to reflect a diverse collection of viewpoints. Sharing a range of news, opinions or satire from others is usually fine. But consistently linking only to one side of a debate can leave the impression that you, too, are taking sides."

The Associated Press has deleted that 2-week-old Clinton tweet



The Associated Press has deleted that 2-week-old Clinton tweet

After facing blowback from journalists and others who criticized a tweet promoting a story about Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, The Association Press announced today it's deleting the tweet.
John Daniszewski, the AP's vice president for standards, explained the decision in a post on the news cooperative's official blog, saying the tweet omitted "essential context."


The erosion of truth: Trump’s surrogates are Fox-ifying mainstream television news

One peculiar consequence of the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump is that the mainstream television media has been invaded by marauding truth-free barbarians who have compromised its integrity.In normal times, mainstream television media outlets pursue excellence by seeking to adhere to well-established journalistic standards, such as the code of ethics promulgated by the Society of Professional Journalists.


A central tenet of journalistic standards is that reporting must strive to be accurate and truthful. And presenting the truth is crucial not only to the integrity of news journalism but also to the proper functioning of our entire democratic society itself.

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/11/the-erosion-of-truth-trumps-surrogates-are-fox-ifying-mainstream-television-news/

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/11/the-erosion-of-truth-trumps-surrogates-are-fox-ifying-mainstream-television-news/

Pepe and the stormtroopers

Much of the Alt-Right’s output will seem indecipherably weird to those unfamiliar with the darker penumbras of popular culture. It has its own iconography and vernacular, derived from message boards, video games and pornography. Its signature insult is “cuckservative”, directed at Republicans supposedly emasculated by liberalism and money.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21707201-how-donald-trump-ushered-hateful-fringe-movement-mainstream-pepe-and?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/pepeandthestormtroopers

[
FIRST, an apology, or rather a regret: The Economist would prefer not to advertise the rantings of racists and cranks. Unfortunately, and somewhat astonishingly, the Alt-Right—the misleading name for a ragtag but consistently repulsive movement that hitherto has flourished only on the internet—has insinuated itself, unignorably, into American politics. That grim achievement points to the reverse sway now held by the margins, of both ideology and the media, over the mainstream. It also reflects the indiscriminate cynicism of Donald Trump’s campaign.

Much of the Alt-Right’s output will seem indecipherably weird to those unfamiliar with the darker penumbras of popular culture. It has its own iconography and vernacular, derived from message boards, video games and pornography. Its signature insult is “cuckservative”, directed at Republicans supposedly emasculated by liberalism and money. Its favourite avatar is Pepe the frog, a cartoon-strip creature co-opted into offensive scenarios; one Pepe image was reposted this week by Donald Trump junior and Roger Stone, a leading Trumpista, the latest example of the candidate’s supporters, and the man himself, circulating the Alt-Right’s memes and hoax statistics. Its contribution to typography is the triple parentheses, placed around names to identify them as Jewish.

To most Americans, the purposes to which these gimmicks are put will seem as outlandish as the lexicon. One of the Alt-Right’s pastimes is to intimidate adversaries with photoshopped pictures of concentration camps; a popular Alt-Right podcast is called “The Daily Shoah”. To their defenders, such outrages are either justified by their shock value or valiantly transgressive pranks. Jokes about ovens, lampshades and gas chambers: what larks!

Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, an extremist website, dismisses these antics as “youthful rebellion”. (Mr Taylor is also involved with the Council of Conservative Citizens, which Dylann Roof cited as an inspiration for his racist massacre in Charleston last year.) But the substance behind the sulphur can seem difficult to pin down. The term Alt-Right, reputedly coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer of the National Policy Institute, a bogus think-tank, encompasses views from libertarianism to paleoconservatism and onwards to the edges of pseudo-intellectual claptrap and the English language. Many Alt-Righters demonise Jews, but a few do not. Some, such as Brad Griffin of Occidental Dissent, another website, think “democracy can become a tool of oppression”, and that monarchy or dictatorship might be better; others, such as Mr Taylor, disagree. Some are techno-futurists; others espouse a kind of agrarian nostalgia. Many mourn the Confederacy. Mr Griffin thinks that, even today, North and South should separate.
Yet from the quack ideologues to the out-and-proud neo-Nazis, some Alt-Right tenets are clear and constant. It repudiates feminism with misogynistic gusto. It embraces isolationism and protectionism. Above all, it champions white nationalism, or a neo-segregationist “race realism”, giving apocalyptic warning of an impending “white genocide”. Which, of course, is really just old-fashioned white supremacism in skimpy camouflage.
That is why the term Alt (short for “alternative”) Right is misleading. Mr Taylor—whom Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Centre, a watchdog, describes as the movement’s “intellectual leader”—says it represents an alternative to “egalitarian orthodoxy and to neutered ‘conservatives’.” That characterisation elevates a racist fixation into a coherent platform. And, if the Alt-Right is not a viable political right, nor, in the scope of American history, is it really an alternative. Rather it is the latest iteration in an old, poisonous strain of American thought, albeit with new enemies, such as Muslims, enlisted alongside the old ones. “Fifty years ago these people were burning crosses,” says Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League, a venerable anti-racist group. “Today they’re burning up Twitter.”
Probably the best that can be said for the Alt-Right is that its mostly youngish adherents are naive: unaware that 21st-century America is not the worst society the world has ever conjured, and so prime exemplars of the pampered modernity they denounce. Their numbers are hard to gauge, since they mostly operate online and, as with most internet bullies, anonymously: like dissidents in the Soviet Union they must, Mr Taylor insists, for fear of punishment. As with pornographers, though, the web has let them forge like-minded communities and propagate their ideas, as well as harass critics and opponents (particularly those thought to be Jewish). Online, they have achieved sufficient density to warrant wider attention. There, too, they and Mr Trump found each other.
The association precedes Mr Trump’s hiring as his campaign manager of Stephen Bannon, former boss of Breitbart News, a reactionary news website that Mr Bannon reportedly described as “the platform for the Alt-Right”, and which has covered the movement favourably. Already Mr Trump had echoed the Alt-Right’s views on Muslims, immigration, trade and, indeed, Vladimir Putin, whom Alt-Righters ludicrously admire for his supposed pursuit of Russia’s national interest. Pressed about these shared prejudices (and tweets), Mr Trump has denied knowing what the Alt-Right is, even that it exists—unable, as usual, to disavow any support, however cretinous, or to apply a moral filter to his alliances or tactics.
This is not to say he created or leads it, much as Alt-Right activists lionise his strongman style. Mr Taylor says Mr Trump seems to have “nationalistic instincts that have led him to stumble onto an immigration policy that is congruent with Alt-Right ideas”, but that “we are supporting him, not the reverse.” Breitbart, Alt-Righters say, is merely Alt-Lite. The true relationship may be more a correlation than causal: Mr Trump’s rise and the Alt-Right were both cultivated by the kamikaze anti-elitism of the Tea Party, rampant conspiracy theories and demographic shifts that disconcert some white Americans.
Unquestionably, however, Mr Trump has bestowed on this excrescence a scarcely dreamed-of prominence. As Hillary Clinton recently lamented, no previous major-party nominee has given America’s paranoid fringe a “national megaphone”. Many on the Alt-Right loved that speech: “it was great,” says Mr Griffin. “She positioned us as the real opposition.” Because of Mr Trump, the Alt-Right thinks it is on the verge of entering American politics as an equal-terms participant. “He is a bulldozer who is destroying our traditional enemy,” says Mr Griffin. Mr Trump may not be Alt-Right himself, but “he doesn’t have to be to advance our cause.”]

2016 Could Be Fact-Checking’s Finest Year—If Anyone Listens

Wired

https://www.wired.com/2016/09/2016-fact-checkings-finest-year-anyone-cared/?mbid=social_twitter

Over the last decade, and since the last election especially, weighing the veracity of politicians’ statements has become one of journalism’s hottest cottage industries. Social media lets journalists and ordinary citizens call out politicians’ lies in real time. Accuracy activists have more ways than ever to shine a veracious light on the scourge of misinformation. At the same time, digital platforms provide more efficient vectors than ever for falsehoods to spread. It’s the fact-checkers’ paradox: even as they gain new powers to hold politicians accountable, lies are more persistent than ever.

Fact-checkers must also contend with an irony that would demoralize less tenacious truth-squadders. When presented with facts that contradict their worldview, the most informed partisans may be the ones least likely to change their minds. The facts, it turns out, don’t just reflect the world as it is. People pick and choose among them to define who they are.
Perhaps a useful response to lies from any politicians - this one about Trump - comes from a business person

When you are confronted with a pathological liar running for public office, you should respond with context and history, with literary flourishes and honesty.
Each and every bizarre falsehood that challenges the fabric of our democracy – be it about his income or his taxes, or about the charitable gifts he never was party to or the litigation he was, about how if he loses, the election must be rigged, this is how the reporters covering the campaign should respond.

The Observer Why Facebook and Microsoft say chatbots are the talk of the town

Software programmed to interact with humans is hot property in Silicon Valley, with potential benefits for businesses, consumers – even the bereaved
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/18/chatbots-talk-town-interact-humans-technology-silicon-valley?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_a-technology_b-gdntech#link_time=1474198366

R.I.P. Political Journalism (1440-2016)

The unrelentingly hostile coverage of Hillary Clinton has dealt a potentially fatal blow to the corporate media's credibility. Antagonism toward Clinton has been noted by numerous media insiders. In 2014, NBC's Chuck Todd said, "I don’t think the country has Clinton fatigue. I think the media has Clinton fatigue. You can sort of feel it." Bloomberg's Mark Halperin recently conceded that "there's a deep well of anti-Clinton sentiment in the press." Those observations have been confirmed by studies from Harvard and the Washington Post — and with a few notable exceptions, corporate media coverage is getting steadily worse as Election Day approaches.

http://shareblue.com/r-i-p-political-journalism/#.V9XBi2vcEaE.twitter

Interesting series of tweets and graphs showing the negative coverage of both candidates

The secrets of David Fahrenthold's reporting on the Trump Foundation

Washington Post journalist David Fahrenthold is investigating the Trump Foundation -- and simultaneously showing how to involve readers in the reporting process.

Other journalists say Fahrenthold's work is inspiring. Some have dubbed it Pulitzer worthy. Its impact was reinforced on Tuesday when President Obama cited the reporting while stumping for Hillary Clinton.
While the Clinton family foundation "has saved countless lives around the world," Trump's foundation "took money other people gave to his charity and then bought a six-foot-tall painting of himself," Obama said.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/13/media/david-fahrenthold-washington-post-donald-trump/index.html?mc_cid=f358693d2f&mc_eid=f1f2b1408e

Wrangling 2.6TB of data: The people and the technology behind the Panama Papers

https://panamapapers.icij.org/blog/20160425-data-tech-team-ICIJ.html

A rundown of some of reported.ly’s favorite tools

https://medium.com/reportedly/a-rundown-of-some-of-reported-lys-favorite-tools-89b8ba59606e#.j6l0e0plw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3GDVqcg2mc&app=desktop


‘Leave the Editorializing to Our Colleagues on the Opinion Side’

For the second time in three months, The Times’s associate managing editor for standards sent a note out to the newsroom Wednesday morning warning journalists to avoid offering up their own political opinions through Twitter, Facebook or other social media. The standards editor, Phil Corbett, says no particular incident prompted the note.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/public-editor/liz-spayd-new-york-times-public-editor-social-media.html?_r=2

Washington Post dings ‘unacceptable’ tweet from Dave Weigel



http://www.poynter.org/2016/washington-post-dings-unacceptable-tweet-from-dave-weigel/428838/

The Washington Post this week reminded employees their online behavior is an extension of their professional lives after a tweet from reporter Dave Weigel drew pushback from readers on social media.

The tweet, which also drew some amens, was launched Tuesday in response to the drubbing of Florida congressional candidate Dan Bongino, calling the defeated ex-Secret Service agent a "lying, pathetic loser."

Passing thoughts

The AP tweet

News is mobile, news is breaking, news is interdependent

Gawker case - democratisation of the media? Find some blogs,

They had a dream. The internet would democratise information. Mews would no longer be under the control of big media, big government, invested ...

They would be pure and clear and honest. Unlike the Mainstream Media

Think alt-right and their proclaimations about msm

The failure of the BBC and ITN covering Brexit debate

Get quote today from the electoral reform people

The technology was in the hands of few.  Media was in the hands of the Few, but our few was better than their few. Our hands were clean, theirs were dirty. Spoilt by wealth, and political influence.

Then came the Flame Wars. To the surprise, not everyone was as nice" as the 

These nasty people even had a name Trolls ... ((That guy thrown off twitter)

Trolls rejoiced in their name

Then the Facebook algorithm. If you liked or read a story, that's what you like, so here's more. No ability to explore ... Surfing the web.

Univision’s Jorge Ramos to journalists: ‘Neutrality is not an option’ for Donald Trump coverage



“It doesn’t matter who you are — a journalist, a politician or a voter—we’ll all be judged by how we responded to Donald Trump,” Mr. Ramos wrote in an op-ed for Time magazine.

Trump has forced journalists to revisit rules of objectivity and fairness. Just providing both points of view is not enough in the current presidential campaign,” he argued. “If a candidate is making racist and sexist remarks, we cannot hide in the principle of neutrality. That’s a false equivalence.

“Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite were right; sometimes you have to take a stand. They did it against the dangerous persecutions of Senator Joe McCarthy and in denouncing the pernicious official spin during the worst years of the Vietnam War,” Mr. Ramos continued.
Donald Trump’s candidacy has created the same moral dilemma and sense of urgency. So, yes, when it comes to racism, discrimination, corruption, public lies, dictatorships and the violation of human rights, we have to take a stand.”

Livestreaming terror: The nebulous new role of platforms

http://www.cjr.org/special_report/in_the_age_of_livestreamed_terror_platforms_and_publishers_must_rethink_their_roles.php?utm_content=buffer0e8d4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Who owns the networks if social media platforms can takedown journalistically valid content which goes against their commercial terms and conditions? What are the ethics of leve streaming terrist attacks? Souold the audience be protected?


In 2013, two men murdered off-duty British soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich, London.
As Rigby was being attacked in the street, bystanders were tweeting about it. One onlooker recorded a video of one of the attackers—with blood still on his hands—talking about why he had carried out the killing.

A research project by Britain’s Economics and Social Research Council that looked at the Woolwich incident concludes that social media is increasingly the place where this kind of news breaks, with important implications for first responders. Social media is now a key driver of public understanding, the report finds, with implications for government and security officials as well as social media platforms, which must consider their role in mediating public reaction to avoid negative outcomes, both in terms of further incidents and community relations.

The platforms insist that they are not publishers, let alone journalistic organizations. ... The terms and conditions of use, however, allow them to remove content, including shutting off live video.

... it is editing. It involves calculating harm and making judgments about taste. Beyond being news sources, platform companies are increasingly shaping the architecture of how news is delivered online, even by publishers themselves. Journalists have lost control over the dissemination of their work. This is a crucial challenge for the news media overall, but the issue is especially acute when it comes to reporting on terror.

Facebook is becoming dominant in the mediation of information for the public

But what happens when a terrorist like Larossi Aballa uses Facebook Live to broadcast himself, after murdering a French policeman and his wife, holding their 3-year-old child hostage, broadcasting threats, and promoting ISIS? The Rigby killers relied on witnesses to broadcast their statements and behavior after the attack, but Aballa was live and in control of his own feed. That material was reused by news media, albeit edited and contextualized.

As Emily Bell, director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia Journalism School, points out, this reflects a difference between news organizations and digital platforms:
When asking news journalists and executives “if you could develop something which let anyone live stream video onto your platform or website, would you?”, the answer after some thought was nearly always “no.” For many publishers the risk of even leaving unmoderated comments on a website was great enough[;] the idea of the world self-reporting under your brand remains anathema. And the platform companies are beginning to understand why.




The rise of Tomi Lahren, the media star lampooned as 'white power Barbie'

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/23/tomi-lahren-conservative-white-power-barbie?mc_cid=14aba83d24&mc_eid=f12f47289f

The Blaze’s up-and-coming conservative TV pundit is seen by many as the new Ann Coulter – and, she says, she is #NeverHillary through and through

Ricardo Gutierrez: State of Macedonia Media ‘Worst in Balkans’

The General Secretary of the European Federation of Journalists, EFJ, says the outlook for press freedom in Macedonia is depressing, condemning the incarceration of the journalist Zoran Bozinovski.

Balkans Insight

A week with CNN’s Corey Lewandowski

Columbia Journalism Review

Partisan hackery is a feature, not a bug, of many cable programs, and networks’ stables of on-air analysts are filled with thoroughbreds. CNN contributor Corey Lewandowski is not unique in that regard. What makes Donald Trump’s former campaign manager different from his counterparts on the split-screen is threefold: He has a non-disparagement agreement with his former boss; he will continue receiving severance payments from the Trump campaign until after the election; and he reportedly still advises the GOP nominee on an unofficial basis.




MEDIA USE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION REPORT

2. TRUST IN THE MEDIA
- Trust in the media has increased slightly -
Trust in the various media has increased slightly in autumn 2014, after having been stable between the Standard Eurobarometer surveys of autumn 2012 and autumn 2013.

Page 21

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb82/eb82_media_en.pdf

MEDIA USE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION REPORT

After rising between autumn 2013 (EB80) autumn 2014 (EB82), trust in the media has declined again slightly in the autumn 2015 survey. 
Radio remains most trusted, but it has lost three percentage points since autumn 2014  
A narrow majority of respondents continue to trust television, but it too has lost ground  
An unchanged minority of respondents trust the written press gained two points in autumn 2014. 
Just over a third of Europeans say they trust the Internet two in ten Europeans say they trust online social networks 


Page 21

Last year:

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb82/eb82_media_en.pdf

Trust in the media is the first casualty of a post-factual war

As politics polarises, the mainstream media is being abandoned in favour of partisan reporting – or no reporting at all

Peter Preston: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/24/trust-in-media-first-casualty-post-factual-war-corbyn-trump?CMP=twt_a-media_b-gdnmedia

Compare with Euromonitor Trust research

Trust – or rather, the absence of it – stands suddenly top of journalism’s talking shop. Gallup in the US releases another of its annual polls that shows trust in the mass media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” has dropped to its lowest level in polling history – with only 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of such confidence.

Those findings are down eight percentage points from last year. Compare and contrast a whopping 72% trust rating on parallel Gallups in 1972, opinions sampled directly after the Watergate heroics: different reputations, different times.



Impress, naturally enough, doesn’t let such disquieting perceptions lie. It contrasts newspapers’ ratings’ mire with the somewhat higher confidence levels that broadcasters enjoy. Why? Because they’re monitored by Ofcom rules on evidence checks, fairness, balance and the rest – an underlying ring of confidence. And now, Heawood claims, the press and attendant websites can choose the same higher ground – by signing up for Impress regulation and displaying its “trust mark” on their front pages.

Americans' Trust in Media Remains at Historical Low

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Four in 10 Americans say they have "a great deal" or "a fair amount" of trust and confidence in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly. This ties the historical lows on this measure set in 2014 and 2012. Prior to 2004, slight majorities of Americans said they trusted the mass media, such as newspapers, TV and radio.

Sept 2015

Gallup Poll

Trust in the media is the first casualty of a post-factual war

As politics polarises, the mainstream media is being abandoned in favour of partisan reporting – or no reporting at all

Peter Preston: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/24/trust-in-media-first-casualty-post-factual-war-corbyn-trump?CMP=twt_a-media_b-gdnmedia

Compare with Euromonitor Trust research

Trust – or rather, the absence of it – stands suddenly top of journalism’s talking shop. Gallup in the US releases another of its annual polls that shows trust in the mass media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” has dropped to its lowest level in polling history – with only 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of such confidence.

Those findings are down eight percentage points from last year. Compare and contrast a whopping 72% trust rating on parallel Gallups in 1972, opinions sampled directly after the Watergate heroics: different reputations, different times.



Impress, naturally enough, doesn’t let such disquieting perceptions lie. It contrasts newspapers’ ratings’ mire with the somewhat higher confidence levels that broadcasters enjoy. Why? Because they’re monitored by Ofcom rules on evidence checks, fairness, balance and the rest – an underlying ring of confidence. And now, Heawood claims, the press and attendant websites can choose the same higher ground – by signing up for Impress regulation and displaying its “trust mark” on their front pages.

How technology disrupted the truth

Social media has swallowed the news – threatening the funding of public-interest reporting and ushering in an era when everyone has their own facts. But the consequences go far beyond journalism
by


https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2016/jul/22/how-technology-disrupted-the-truth-podcast

"When a fact begins to resemble whatever you feel is true, it becomes very difficult for anyone to tell the difference between facts that are true and “facts” that are not."

Twenty-five years after the first website went online, it is clear that we are living through a period of dizzying transition. For 500 years after Gutenberg, the dominant form of information was the printed page: knowledge was primarily delivered in a fixed format, one that encouraged readers to believe in stable and settled truths.

Now, we are caught in a series of confusing battles between opposing forces: between truth and falsehood, fact and rumour, kindness and cruelty; between the few and the many, the connected and the alienated; between the open platform of the web as its architects envisioned it and the gated enclosures of Facebook and other social networks; between an informed public and a misguided mob.
What is common to these struggles – and what makes their resolution an urgent matter – is that they all involve the diminishing status of truth. This does not mean that there are no truths. It simply means, as this year has made very clear, that we cannot agree on what those truths are, and when there is no consensus about the truth and no way to achieve it, chaos soon follows.
Increasingly, what counts as a fact is merely a view that someone feels to be true – and technology has made it very easy for these “facts” to circulate with a speed and reach that was unimaginable in the Gutenberg era (or even a decade ago). A dubious story about Cameron and a pig appears in a tabloid one morning, and by noon, it has flown around the world on social media and turned up in trusted news sources everywhere. This may seem like a small matter, but its consequences are enormous.

“The Truth”, as Peter Chippindale and Chris Horrie wrote in Stick It Up Your Punter!, their history of the Sun newspaper, is a “bald statement which every newspaper prints at its peril”. There are usually several conflicting truths on any given subject, but in the era of the printing press, words on a page nailed things down, whether they turned out to be true or not. The information felt like the truth, at least until the next day brought another update or a correction, and we all shared a common set of facts.

This settled “truth” was usually handed down from above: an established truth, often fixed in place by an establishment. This arrangement was not without flaws: too much of the press often exhibited a bias towards the status quo and a deference to authority, and it was prohibitively difficult for ordinary people to challenge the power of the press. Now, people distrust much of what is presented as fact – particularly if the facts in question are uncomfortable, or out of sync with their own views – and while some of that distrust is misplaced, some of it is not.

How the ‘Great Paradox’ of American politics holds the secret to Trump’s success


In the heartland of the American right, people harmed by polluting industries have instead come to hate the government whose environmental regulations protect them. Now they’re voting for Donald Trump

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/07/how-great-paradox-american-politics-holds-secret-trumps-success

podcast: https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2016/sep/19/how-the-great-paradox-of-american-politics-holds-the-secret-to-trumps-success-podcast

In the life of one man, Lee Sherman, I saw reflected both sides of the Great Paradox – the need for help and a principled refusal of it. As a victim of toxic exposure himself, a participant in polluting public waters, now proudly declaring himself as an environmentalist, why was he throwing in his lot with the anti-environmental Tea Party? Not because anyone was paying him to, at least directly. Sherman was putting up Tea Party lawn signs for free.
His source of news was limited to Fox News and videos and blogs exchanged by rightwing friends, which placed him in an echo chamber of doubt about the EPA, the federal government, the president, and taxes.

When Americans moved in the past, they left their homes in search of better jobs, cheaper housing, or milder weather. But, according to Bill Bishop and Robert G Cushing’s book, The Big Sort, when people move today, it is more often to live near others who share their views. People are segregating themselves into different emotionally toned enclaves – anger here, hopefulness and trust there. And the more people who confine themselves to like-minded company, the more extreme their views become. According to a 2014 Pew study of more than 10,000 Americans, the most politically engaged on each side see those in the “other party” not just as wrong, but as “so misguided that they threaten the nation’s wellbeing”. Compared with the past, each side also increasingly gets its news from its own television channel – the right from Fox News, the left from MSNBC. And so the divide widens.


How the ‘Great Paradox’ of American politics holds the secret to Trump’s success


In the heartland of the American right, people harmed by polluting industries have instead come to hate the government whose environmental regulations protect them. Now they’re voting for Donald Trump

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/07/how-great-paradox-american-politics-holds-secret-trumps-success

podcast: https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2016/sep/19/how-the-great-paradox-of-american-politics-holds-the-secret-to-trumps-success-podcast

In the life of one man, Lee Sherman, I saw reflected both sides of the Great Paradox – the need for help and a principled refusal of it. As a victim of toxic exposure himself, a participant in polluting public waters, now proudly declaring himself as an environmentalist, why was he throwing in his lot with the anti-environmental Tea Party? Not because anyone was paying him to, at least directly. Sherman was putting up Tea Party lawn signs for free.
His source of news was limited to Fox News and videos and blogs exchanged by rightwing friends, which placed him in an echo chamber of doubt about the EPA, the federal government, the president, and taxes.

When Americans moved in the past, they left their homes in search of better jobs, cheaper housing, or milder weather. But, according to Bill Bishop and Robert G Cushing’s book, The Big Sort, when people move today, it is more often to live near others who share their views. People are segregating themselves into different emotionally toned enclaves – anger here, hopefulness and trust there. And the more people who confine themselves to like-minded company, the more extreme their views become. According to a 2014 Pew study of more than 10,000 Americans, the most politically engaged on each side see those in the “other party” not just as wrong, but as “so misguided that they threaten the nation’s wellbeing”. Compared with the past, each side also increasingly gets its news from its own television channel – the right from Fox News, the left from MSNBC. And so the divide widens.


How the ‘Great Paradox’ of American politics holds the secret to Trump’s success


In the heartland of the American right, people harmed by polluting industries have instead come to hate the government whose environmental regulations protect them. Now they’re voting for Donald Trump

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/07/how-great-paradox-american-politics-holds-secret-trumps-success

podcast: https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2016/sep/19/how-the-great-paradox-of-american-politics-holds-the-secret-to-trumps-success-podcast

In the life of one man, Lee Sherman, I saw reflected both sides of the Great Paradox – the need for help and a principled refusal of it. As a victim of toxic exposure himself, a participant in polluting public waters, now proudly declaring himself as an environmentalist, why was he throwing in his lot with the anti-environmental Tea Party? Not because anyone was paying him to, at least directly. Sherman was putting up Tea Party lawn signs for free.
His source of news was limited to Fox News and videos and blogs exchanged by rightwing friends, which placed him in an echo chamber of doubt about the EPA, the federal government, the president, and taxes.

When Americans moved in the past, they left their homes in search of better jobs, cheaper housing, or milder weather. But, according to Bill Bishop and Robert G Cushing’s book, The Big Sort, when people move today, it is more often to live near others who share their views. People are segregating themselves into different emotionally toned enclaves – anger here, hopefulness and trust there. And the more people who confine themselves to like-minded company, the more extreme their views become. According to a 2014 Pew study of more than 10,000 Americans, the most politically engaged on each side see those in the “other party” not just as wrong, but as “so misguided that they threaten the nation’s wellbeing”. Compared with the past, each side also increasingly gets its news from its own television channel – the right from Fox News, the left from MSNBC. And so the divide widens.


Saturday, 24 September 2016

Kathy Sheridan: US networks sell their soul for Trump ratings boostv

Irish Times:

American friends wonder why the media cannot ignore the Republican candidate for a week


Last week (September 16) in the US, a Gallop poll suggested that 
only one in three Americans have any trust in the media, the lowest ever recorded. 

Separately, in a vanishingly rare show of dignity, the major television networks staged a minor rebellion against Donald Trump’s mighty media stranglehold.
This stranglehold is fashioned from dollar bills. Not Trump’s own dosh of course – he brags about not spending money on campaign ads – but from the ratings generated by his nonsensical, childish bombast. 

With their round-the-clock, razzle-dazzle coverage of his campaign, network chiefs knew well the destruction they were wreaking on the body politic of the US and its people. 

In February, CBS chairman, Les Moonves, said as much. “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS. Man, who would have expected the ride we’re all having right now? The money’s rolling in and this is fun. It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going.”

The networks hit their nadir last week when they accepted Trump’s invitation to an event billed as a major statement on President Obama’s place of birth.

Only after a series of testimonials to the great man from retired military men and more than 20 minutes of priceless, live TV coverage, did he finally step up to acknowledge President Obama as American, in a segment that took all of 33 seconds and included the playground jibe that Hillary Clinton started it.  


“We got played again,” admitted John King, CNN’s chief national correspondent live on air, while America’s news terriers recommenced lashing Clinton for daring to soldier on through pneumonia. 

There are lessons here to be learned by the world’s media. And by all those who say they don’t care how the media works. And, most importantly, by those who routinely call for big, mouthy businessmen to sort out the country’s problems. Watch next week’s debate. 

A Harvard professor studied 10 major media outlets and found a harsh reality about election coverage

10 major outlets studied

Each report was based on a detailed content analysis of the presidential election coverage on five television networks (ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC) and in five leading newspapers (Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and USA Today).

The analysis indicates that substantive policy issues have received only a small amount of attention in the 2016 election coverage.

But in the overall context of election coverage, issues have played second fiddle. They were at the forefront in the halls of the national conventions but not in the forefront of convention-period news coverage. Not a single policy proposal accounted for even 1% of Hillary Clinton's convention-period coverage, and collectively her policy stances accounted for a mere 4% of it.

Trump's policies got more attention — but not until after the Democratic convention ...

"Medialities" is the label political scientist Michael Robinson has given to such controversies. Journalists find them irresistible,

More here from The Conversation

What distracts us

The leading "mediality" of the 2016 campaign has been Clinton's emails. That and other news references to Clinton-related "scandals" accounted for 11% of her convention-period coverage.

Policy issues, on the other hand, lack novelty.

When broadcasting fairness and balance isn't fair or balanced

When broadcasting fairness and balance isn't fair or balanced - Roy Greenslade  Professor of Journalism at City University London 

Just before the referendum campaign got under way, he noted that the assistant political editor of BBC News, Norman Smith, had said that the facts on the EU were “elusive.” 
Not so, tweeted McKee at the time, “they are easy to find. It’s just that #VoteLeave have lied consistently.” 
He regarded the Smith statement as a typical example of the BBC’s “fairness bias”, an assumption that “claims cannot be objectively verified and everything is a matter of opinion.” He wrote: 
“Crucially, this approach places the views of people who, by virtue of their long years of studying an issue and familiarity with it, on a par with those who have only thought about it perhaps a few hours earlier.” 
To underline his point he quoted Aaron Sorkin, creator of the West Wing and Newsroom TV series: “If the entire House Republican caucus were to walk on to the floor one day and say ‘the Earth is flat,’ the headline in the New York Times the next day would read ‘Democrats and Republicans Can’t Agree on Shape of Earth.’” 
While conceding that it is important to hear all sides of an argument he thought viewers and listeners would be misled when one side in a debate “is simply implausible or demonstrably untrue.”