Jay Rosen's list of problems facing journalism/journalists post Trump election.
http://pressthink.org/2016/10/10/tile/list-top-problems-pressthink/
Showing posts with label Journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Journalism. Show all posts
Friday, 11 November 2016
Wednesday, 5 October 2016
Media Exclusive: Is Donald Trump’s Endgame the Launch of Trump News?
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/donald-trump-tv-network
Trump, this person close to the matter suggests, has become irked by his ability to create revenue for other media organizations without being able to take a cut himself. Such a situation “brings him to the conclusion that he has the business acumen and the ratings for his own network.” Trump has “gotten the bug,” according to this person. “So now he wants to figure out if he can monetize it.”
Hope Hicks, Trump’s spokeswoman, adamantly denied that such conversations have occurred. (“There is absolutely no truth to this whatsoever,” she told me. “This hasn’t been even uttered. Not even thought about.”) Then, after conferring with Trump, she issued a subsequent statement clarifying her point: “While it’s true Mr. Trump garners exceptionally high ratings, there are absolutely no plans or discussions taking place regarding a venture of this nature.” Meanwhile, someone close to Kushner has suggested that Trump would be unlikely to go so far as to seek out a partner at this stage of the race, given that it might risk alienating many of the established media players that he has outflanked—and that he is relying on to get him elected. (Such a move would also inevitably raise issues regarding the F.C.C.’s “equal-time” rule.)
Trump, this person close to the matter suggests, has become irked by his ability to create revenue for other media organizations without being able to take a cut himself. Such a situation “brings him to the conclusion that he has the business acumen and the ratings for his own network.” Trump has “gotten the bug,” according to this person. “So now he wants to figure out if he can monetize it.”
Hope Hicks, Trump’s spokeswoman, adamantly denied that such conversations have occurred. (“There is absolutely no truth to this whatsoever,” she told me. “This hasn’t been even uttered. Not even thought about.”) Then, after conferring with Trump, she issued a subsequent statement clarifying her point: “While it’s true Mr. Trump garners exceptionally high ratings, there are absolutely no plans or discussions taking place regarding a venture of this nature.” Meanwhile, someone close to Kushner has suggested that Trump would be unlikely to go so far as to seek out a partner at this stage of the race, given that it might risk alienating many of the established media players that he has outflanked—and that he is relying on to get him elected. (Such a move would also inevitably raise issues regarding the F.C.C.’s “equal-time” rule.)
Monday, 26 September 2016
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:
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)