I have written on journalism and media trends eariler few years ago. So it is time for update. What is the state of journalism and news publishing in 2017? NiemanLab’s predictions for 2017 are a good place to start thinking about what lies ahead for journalism. There, Matt Waite puts us in our place straight away by telling us that the people running the media are the problem.
There has been changes on tech publishing. In January 2017 International Data Group, the owner of PCWorld magazine and market researcher IDC, on Thursday said it was being acquired by China Oceanwide Holdings Group and IDG Capital, the investment management firm run by IDG China executive Hugo Shong. In 2016 Arrow bought EE Times, EDN, TechOnline and lots more from UBM.
Here are some article links and information bits on journalist and media in 2017:
Soothsayers’ guides to journalism in 2017 article take a look at journalism predictions and the value of this year’s predictions.
What Journalism Needs To Do Post-Election article tells that faced with the growing recognition that the electorate was uniformed or, at minimum, deeply in the thrall of fake news, far too many journalists are responding not with calls for change but by digging in deeper to exactly the kinds of practices that got us here in the first place.
Fake News Is About to Get Even Scarier than You Ever Dreamed article says that what we saw in the 2016 election is nothing compared to what we need to prepare for in 2020 as incipient technologies appear likely to soon obliterate the line between real and fake.
Headlines matter article tells that in 2017, headlines will matter more than ever and journalists will need to wrest control of headline writing from social-optimization teams. People get their news from headlines now in a way they never did in the past.
Why new journalism grads are optimistic about 2017 article tells that since today’s college journalism students have been in school, the forecasts for their futures has been filled with words like “layoffs,” “cutbacks,” “buyouts” and “freelance.” Still many people are optimistic about the future because the main motivation for being a journalist is often “to make a difference.”
Updating social media account can be a serious job. Zuckerberg has 12+ Facebook employees helping him with posts and comments on his Facebook page and professional photographers to snap personal moments.
Wikipedia Is Being Ripped Apart By a Witch Hunt For Secretly Paid Editors article tells that with undisclosed paid editing on the rise, Wikipedians and the Wikimedia Foundation are working together to stop the practice without discouraging user participation. Paid editing is permissible under Wikimedia Foundation’s terms of use as long as they disclose these conflicts of interest on their user pages, but not all paid editors make these disclosures.
Big Internet giants are working on how to make content better for mobile devices. Instant Articles is a new way for any publisher to create fast, interactive articles on Facebook. Google’s AMP (Accelerated Mobile Pages) is a project that it aims to accelerate content on mobile devices. Both of those systems have their advantages and problems.
Clearing Out the App Stores: Government Censorship Made Easier article tells that there’s a new form of digital censorship sweeping the globe, and it could be the start of something devastating. The centralization of the internet via app stores has made government censorship easier. If the app isn’t in a country’s app store, it effectively doesn’t exist. For more than a decade, we users of digital devices have actively championed an online infrastructure that now looks uniquely vulnerable to the sanctions of despots and others who seek to control information.
2,356 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
Benjamin Mullin / Poynter:
After publishing a database of unofficial White House visitor logs based on public data, Politico debuts database API to expand cooperation with other news orgs — Andrew Restuccia wanted the answer to a simple question: Who was visiting the White House? — After doing some digging …
With its new interactive news team, Politico wants to let sunshine into the Beltway
http://www.poynter.org/2017/with-its-new-interactive-news-team-politico-wants-to-let-sunshine-into-the-beltway/459589/
Andrew Restuccia wanted the answer to a simple question: Who was visiting the White House?
After doing some digging, the Politico senior policy reporter was able to show that CEOs in the auto, energy and airline industries were among some of President Trump’s most influential guests. But when the White House announced in April that it would not publish a record of visitor logs, he decided something more should be done.
“I was actually surprised that other people hadn’t done it already — partly because we see it as a resource not just for the Politico newsroom, but for newsrooms all over the country,” Restuccia said.
The fruit of Restuccia’s painstaking labor, “All the President’s Guests,” was published earlier this week. A public database of White House visitors that draws on more than 1,500 individual records, the project is the first of its kind for Politico and a prototypical example of what the newsroom hopes to accomplish with its burgeoning interactive news team.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Shane Goldmacher / Politico:28 minutes ago
Sources: WH aides are sharing a mix of fake and real news stories with Trump in an attempt to influence policy and bolster their standing within the Oval Office — The president rarely surfs the web on his own, but his staff have made a habit of slipping news stories on to his desk—including the occasional internet hoax.
How Trump gets his fake news
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/15/donald-trump-fake-news-238379
The president rarely surfs the web on his own, but his staff have made a habit of slipping news stories on to his desk—including the occasional internet hoax.
While the information stream to past commanders-in-chief has been tightly monitored, Trump prefers an open Oval Office with a free flow of ideas and inputs from both official and unofficial channels. And he often does not differentiate between the two. Aides sometimes slip him stories to press their advantage on policy; other times they do so to gain an edge in the seemingly endless Game of Thrones inside the West Wing.
The consequences can be tremendous, according to a half-dozen White House officials and others with direct interactions with the president.
Trump may not be a fan of briefing books but he does devour the news. Most mornings, current and former aides say, Trump reads through a handful of newspapers in print, including the New York Times, New York Post, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal — all while watching cable news shows in the background.
He uses the Internet minimally, other than tweeting and tracking his mentions, so what other news stories he sees can be more haphazard. Trump does receive a daily binder of news clippings put together his communications team
There is universal agreement among Trump advisers on this: The best way to focus the president’s attention on any story is to tell him about it personally, even if it is in one of the papers he’s already thumbed through.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Brendan Gauthier / Salon:
Fox News and Infowars published a debunked conspiracy about murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich, which remained on FoxNews.com after Rich’s family issued a statement — Fox publishes a bogus story that’s easily debunked. Then Infowars says a bigger story is evidence of a coverup
Fox, Infowars publish debunked conspiracy about murdered DNC staffer
http://www.salon.com/2017/05/16/fox-infowars-publish-debunked-conspiracy-about-murdered-dnc-staffer/
Fox publishes a bogus story that’s easily debunked. Then Infowars says a bigger story is evidence of a coverup
Tomi Engdahl says:
Sam Levin / The Guardian:
Review shows Facebook’s anti-fake news initiatives as ineffective, with many articles disputed by fact-checkers being labeled “disputed” too late or not at all — hen Facebook’s new fact-checking system labeled a Newport Buzz article as possible “fake news”, warning users against sharing it, something unexpected happened.
Facebook promised to tackle fake news. But the evidence shows it’s not working
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/16/facebook-fake-news-tools-not-working?CMP=share_btn_tw
Following pressure from users, the social network introduced tools to stem the spread of false information. But the rollout has been rocky at best
When Facebook’s new fact-checking system labeled a Newport Buzz article as possible “fake news”, warning users against sharing it, something unexpected happened. Traffic to the story skyrocketed, according to Christian Winthrop, editor of the local Rhode Island website.
“A bunch of conservative groups grabbed this and said, ‘Hey, they are trying to silence this blog – share, share share,’”
The spreading of Winthrop’s piece after it was debunked and branded “disputed” is one of many examples of the pitfalls of Facebook’s much-discussed initiatives to thwart misinformation on the social network by partnering with third-party fact-checkers and publicly flagging fake news. A Guardian review of false news articles and interviews with fact-checkers and writers who produce fake content suggests that Facebook’s highly promoted initiatives are regularly ineffective, and in some cases appear to be having minimal impact.
Articles formally debunked by Facebook’s fact-checking partners – including the Associated Press, Snopes, ABC News and PolitiFact – frequently remain on the site without the “disputed” tag warning users about the content. And when fake news stories do get branded as potentially false, the label often comes after the story has already gone viral and the damage has been done. Even in those cases, it’s unclear to what extent the flag actually limits the spread of propaganda.
“Fake news is flying thick and fast,” said Brooke Binkowski, the managing editor of Snopes
When two or more fact-checkers debunk an article, it is supposed to get a “disputed” tag that warns users before they share the
While some of the fact-checking groups said the collaboration has been a productive step in the right direction, a review of content suggests that the labor going into the checks may have little consequences.
Robert Shooltz, who runs the site RealNewsRightNow, said it did not seem that the debunking of his content by Facebook fact-checkers was impacting traffic.
“These stories are like flash grenades. They go off and explode for a day,” said Coler, who said he is no longer publishing false news. “If you’re three days late on a fact check, you already missed the boat.”
“A far-right individual who sees it’s been disputed by Snopes, that adds fuel to the fire and entrenches them more in their belief.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Stephen Fry Explains Why People Believe Donald Trump
It’s all to do with the Dunning-Kruger effect.
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_59195746e4b0fe039b35b97e?utm_hp_ref=stephen-fry&
Say what you like about him, one thing you can’t accuse Donald Trump of lacking is confidence in his own beliefs.
Even when they are demonstrably wrong.
But what’s perhaps more worrying is the sheer number of people who believe him.
Luckily Stephen Fry is here to help explain the phenomenon.
It’s all to do with the Dunning-Kruger effect, the tendency for the least mentally proficient people to often overestimate their own abilities.
Speaking of research into the Dunning-Kruger effect, Fry says: “The skills they lacked were the same skills required to recognise their incompetence.
“The incompetent are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence buoyed by something that feels to them like knowledge.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Ingrid Lunden / TechCrunch:
Google says there are 2B pages and 900K domains using AMP; pages now load twice as fast
Google’s AMP now powers 2B+ mobile pages and 900K domains, loads 2x faster
https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/18/googles-amp-now-powers-2b-mobile-pages-and-900k-domains-loads-2x-faster/
As Google looks for ways to keep people using its own mobile search to discover content — in competition with apps and other services like Facebook’s Instant Articles — the company is announcing some updates to AMP, its collaborative project to speed up mobile web pages.
Today at the Google I/O developer conference, Google announced that there are now over 2 billion AMP pages covering some 900,000 domains. These pages also also loading twice as fast as before via Google Search, and that the AMP network is now expanding to more e-commerce sites and covering more ad formats.
The advances serve as a counterbalance to some of the controversy that Google and others have courted through initiatives like this, which are optimised for user experience, but have been criticised for pointing people essentially to Google/Facebook/other domains and therefore taking traffic away from the sites themselves.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Josh Constine / TechCrunch:
Facebook says it’s now limiting News Feed distribution of posts that withhold or exaggerate information at the individual post level, to combat clickbait — Facebook’s leverage over news publishers can be worrisome, but today it’s putting its muscle to good use.
Facebook feed change fights clickbait post by post in 9 more languages
https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/17/facebook-anti-clickbait/
Facebook’s leverage over news publishers can be worrisome, but today it’s putting its muscle to good use. The social network is bringing its battle against clickbait abroad, getting more precise about which link headlines it downranks in News Feed, and starting to demote individual posts instead of just web domains and Facebook Pages.
Now Facebook can detect and downrank clickbait headlines in German, Arabic, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, Thai, Vietnamese, and Chinese as well as English.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Kill Google AMP before it KILLS the web
Trust, independence, credibility – we’ve heard of those
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/19/open_source_insider_google_amp_bad_bad_bad/
Open source insider There’s been a good deal of ongoing discussion about Google AMP – Accelerated Mobile Pages.
Quite a few high-profile web developers have this year weighted in with criticism and some, following a Google conference dedicated to AMP, have cautioned users about diving in with both feet.
These, in my view, don’t go far enough in stating the problem and I feel this needs to be said very clearly: Google’s AMP is bad – bad in a potentially web-destroying way. Google AMP is bad news for how the web is built, it’s bad news for publishers of credible online content, and it’s bad news for consumers of that content. Google AMP is only good for one party: Google. Google, and possibly, purveyors of fake news.
It’s time for developers to wake up and, as Jason Scott once said of Facebook, stop: “Shoveling down the sh*t sherbet” Google is now serving with AMP.
Announced in 2015, duly open sourced and integrated into Google’s mobile search, Google has pitched AMP as a way to speed the mobile web. It employs something the ads slinger calls AMP HTML that the firm describes as a “new open framework built entirely out of existing web technologies.”
What it is, is a way for Google to obfuscate your website, usurp your content and remove any lingering notions of personal credibility from the web.
Why a subset of HTML you ask? Well, mostly because web developers suck at their jobs and have loaded the web with a ton of JavaScript no one wants. Can’t fault Google for wanting to change that. That part I can support. The less JavaScript the better.
So far AMP actually sounds appealing. Except that, hilariously, to create an AMP page you have to load a, wait for it, yes a JavaScript file from Google.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Nick Hopkins / The Guardian:
100+ internal training manuals and other docs show guidelines for Facebook content moderators on topics like violence, hate speech, terrorism, porn, self-harm
Revealed: Facebook’s internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/21/revealed-facebook-internal-rulebook-sex-terrorism-violence?CMP=share_btn_tw
Leaked policies guiding moderators on what content to allow are likely to fuel debate about social media giant’s ethics
Facebook’s secret rules and guidelines for deciding what its 2 billion users can post on the site are revealed for the first time in a Guardian investigation that will fuel the global debate about the role and ethics of the social media giant.
The Guardian has seen more than 100 internal training manuals, spreadsheets and flowcharts that give unprecedented insight into the blueprints Facebook has used to moderate issues such as violence, hate speech, terrorism, pornography, racism and self-harm.
Tomi Engdahl says:
No nudity please, we’re killing ourselves: Advice to Facebook mods leaks
What’s allowed and what isn’t
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/22/facebook_moderators_advice_leaks/
Facebook, which earned $27bn last year, has 4,500 human moderators and recently said it would add another 3,000. They decide whether material posted by the network’s two billion users stays online or not.
Protected by a law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which in the United States gives any intermediary a powerful legal shield against liability, it isn’t surprising to find Facebook leans on the side of permissiveness.
Videos of violent deaths “can help create awareness”, but must be marked disturbing. So too is footage of non-sexual child abuse, unless it is shared “with sadism and celebration”.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Nick Hopkins / The Guardian:
100+ internal training manuals and other docs show guidelines for Facebook content moderators on topics like violence, hate speech, terrorism, porn, self-harm — Leaked policies guiding moderators on what content to allow are likely to fuel debate about social media giant’s ethics
Revealed: Facebook’s internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/21/revealed-facebook-internal-rulebook-sex-terrorism-violence?CMP=share_btn_tw
Leaked policies guiding moderators on what content to allow are likely to fuel debate about social media giant’s ethics
Tomi Engdahl says:
Josh Constine / TechCrunch:
Patreon says it now has 1M monthly active paying patrons and 50K active creators, both doubling YoY, and is on track to pay out $150M to creators in 2017 — Patreon’s novel idea of fans just directly paying the artists they love is having its hockey stick moment.
Patreon doubles in a year to 1M paying patrons and 50K creators
https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/18/patreon-pushes-as-youtube-stutters/
Patreon’s novel idea of fans just directly paying the artists they love is having its hockey stick moment. Patreon tells TechCrunch that in a year, it’s doubled the number of monthly active paying patrons to 1 million, and the number of active creators to 50,000. It’s now on track to pay out $150 million to creators in 2017, which would make its 5 percent cut equal $7.5 million in revenue. That’s after paying out $100 million total since 2014.
Videographers, musicians, writers, illustrators, animators, podcasters, game developers and more artists are finding steady income through Patreon at a time when other platforms look shaky for creators.
After the PewDiePie scandal alerted advertisers that they were appearing alongside objectionable content, YouTube has started letting them filter out certain channels. The result has been a decrease in monetization for YouTube stars. Vine died. Snapchat has neglected creators, refused to offer them direct monetization options and now has seen view counts fall due to ditching auto-advance and competition from Instagram.
Meanwhile, Instagram doesn’t offer ad revenue splits with creators. Facebook has begun to give some video makers 55 percent of the revenue from ad breaks they insert in their clips, but the program has yet to scale. Ad-supported platforms often pay merely $0.10 to $0.0005 per view, so creators have to be broadly popular to earn a living.
Yet on Patreon, contributors frequently cough up $5 per month to each of their favorite creators, who make 50X to 10,000X more per fan than on ads.
Thirty-five creators made more than $150,000 in 2016, and thousands earn more than $25,000 a year.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Recode:
Sources: Facebook’s TV-like shows, set for mid-June launch, have been delayed at least until late July
Facebook is delaying the launch of its original videos until the end of summer
One challenge is figuring out where these shows will live outside of Facebook’s video tab.
https://www.recode.net/2017/5/19/15666906/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-original-video-tab-tv-delay
Facebook’s big push into original video is taking longer than expected.
The social network’s plans to release a slate of made-for-Facebook original video shows has been pushed back and may not arrive until the end of summer, according to multiple sources.
Facebook has been in talks with video publishers for months to create these TV-style videos, which will live in a redesigned video tab inside the app. The company initially wanted to have them done by April, and then pushed that rollout to mid-June with the hope of unveiling those shows — or at least some of them — when the media world descends upon the south of France for the Cannes Lions advertising conference next month.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Maxwell Tani / Business Insider:
Infowars was reportedly granted temporary White House press credentials, which are easier to receive than a permanent pass — Far-right website InfoWars was granted temporary White House press credentials on Monday. — Jerome Corsi, the Washington, DC bureau chief for the site that’s known …
Conspiracy outlet InfoWars was granted temporary White House press credentials
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/infowars-granted-white-house-press-credentials-2017-5?op=1&r=US&IR=T
Far-right website InfoWars was granted temporary White House press credentials on Monday.
Jerome Corsi, the Washington, DC bureau chief for the site that’s known for its propagation of conspiracy theories about the September 11 terrorist attacks and the Sandy Hook shooting, tweeted a picture of himself inside the White House press briefing room.
Monday wasn’t the first time an InfoWars reporter attended a press briefing, nor is it likely to be the last.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Kristen Hare / Poynter:
As part of its outreach to news publishers, Facebook is testing three new products which aim to connect users with local news — As part of its ongoing push to build relationships with local publishers, Facebook is testing products that can help people better connect with local news.
Facebook is testing products to connect its users to local news
http://www.poynter.org/2017/facebook-is-testing-products-to-connect-its-users-to-local-news/460391/
As part of its ongoing push to build relationships with local publishers, Facebook is testing products that can help people better connect with local news.
Those tests, part of the Facebook Journalism Project, have just begun, but they’re all aimed at helping people discover and engage with news outlets in their communities, a Facebook spokesperson told Poynter.
The tests are on three products: One points users in community-linked Facebook groups to additional local news. Another, launching Tuesday, offers users who make their cities of residence public a badge identifying them as a local when they comment on a local publisher’s stories. A third helps people find local groups.
Introducing: The Facebook Journalism Project
https://media.fb.com/2017/01/11/facebook-journalism-project/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Monika Bickert / The Guardian:
In response to leak of its content moderation guidelines, Facebook tries to explain “how and where we draw the line”
At Facebook we get things wrong – but we take our safety role seriously
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/22/facebook-get-things-wrong-but-safety-role-seriously
Our reviewing of difficult posts and images is complex and challenging. We appreciate the Guardian revealing how tough it is to get the balance right
Tomi Engdahl says:
Manchester attack: Twitter and Facebook users maliciously share fake images of missing people
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/manchester-attack-explosion-arena-missing-people-fake-images-social-media-share-facebook-twitter-a7750756.html
People are sharing fake images of supposedly missing friends after the Manchester attack.
Tomi Engdahl says:
A number of fake stories have gone viral following the Manchester terrorist attack
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/manchester-arena-attack-ariana-grande-fake-news-stories-2017-5
A number of false stories went viral and were reported by some of Britain’s biggest newspapers in the moments following last night’s attack on the Manchester Arena.
An unidentified man detonated a bomb at an Ariana Grande concert at the Manchester venue on Monday evening, killing 22 and injuring at least 59. Greater Manchester Police confirmed that children are among the deceased.
A number of bogus stories went viral as the horrific scene in Manchester, north-west England began to unfold, and some are still being shared on social media this morning, despite being entirely false.
Lots of parents, family members, and friends posted pictures and details of loved ones who were missing after the attack on social media. However, not all of these posts were genuine and some were designed to generate retweets.
This Is Some Of The Fake News Circulating About The Manchester Attack
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/manchester-arena-fake-news?utm_term=.saoGORLDA#.jjnr4G8Lv
A terror attack has claimed the lives of at least 22 people at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester. Here are the claims you shouldn’t believe about the incident.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Laura Hazard Owen / Nieman Lab:20 minutes ago
Scribd adds select articles from The Guardian, the NYT, and WSJ, as well as archival content from the FT; the service now has 500K+ subs paying $8.99 a month — The content subscription site is adding content from newspapers like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
Scribd says it has over 500,000 subscribers paying $8.99/month for ebooks, audiobooks, and now news
http://www.niemanlab.org/2017/05/scribd-says-it-has-over-500000-subscribers-paying-8-99month-for-ebooks-audiobooks-and-now-news/
The content subscription site is adding content from newspapers like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
Tomi Engdahl says:
How NPR considers what new platforms — from smartwatches to fridges — will get its programming
“Generally, we try to get to ‘yes’ faster than we try to get to ‘no.‘”
http://www.niemanlab.org/2017/05/how-npr-considers-what-new-platforms-from-smartwatches-to-fridges-will-get-its-programming/
“Folks in the building have the same questions. I heard somebody talking about the fridge the other day — ‘Is that true, we’re on a fridge?’ I said, yeah,”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Washington Post:
Google to begin using credit and debit card transaction data to show online ads prompt consumers to buy in physical stores, details tech to preserve privacy — SAN FRANCISCO — Google will begin using data from billions of credit and debit card transactions — including card numbers …
Google now knows when its users go to the store and buy stuff
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/05/23/google-now-knows-when-you-are-at-a-cash-register-and-how-much-you-are-spending/?utm_term=.2e4f893859f3
oogle will begin using data from billions of credit and debit card transactions — including card numbers, purchase amounts and time stamps — to solve the advertising juggernaut’s long-standing quest to prove that online ads prompt consumers to make purchases in brick-and-mortar stores, the company said on Tuesday.
The advance, which enables Google to tell retailers how many sales they created through their digital ad campaigns, is a step toward what industry insiders have long described as the “holy grail” of digital advertising.
“Google — and also Facebook — believe that in order to get digital dollars from advertisers who are still primarily spending on TV, they need to prove that digital works,” said Amit Jain, chief executive of Bridg, a digital advertising startup that matches online to offline behavior.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Freddy Mayhew / Press Gazette:
The Manchester Evening News raised £1M+ in crowdsourced donations from 30K+ people, for the families of those killed or injured in the city’s terror attack
MEN fundraising page set up for families of Manchester bombing victims passes £1m in just over 24 hours
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/men-produces-34-pages-of-coverage-on-terror-attack-for-9am-edition-as-editor-writes-the-terrorists-will-fail-we-will-prevail/
A fundraising page set up by the Manchester Evening News to support the families of those killed or injured in the bombing at a concert venue in the city has raised more than £1m in just over 24 hours.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Zeynep Tufekci / BuzzFeed:
Terrorism is mass murder with a media strategy and news outlets must learn to disrupt it, instead of providing endlessly looping coverage of attacks — Struggling to cover terror in the media age. — It’s 2017, and the world is shaken by another depraved mass murder, carried out and claimed in the name of ISIS.
ISIS Has A Strategy To Create A Media Frenzy And News Outlets Are Struggling To Disrupt It
Struggling to cover terror in the media age.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/zeyneptufekci/dont-let-isis-shape-the-news?utm_term=.rnwzABkO5d#.pnj83x4MGD
It’s 2017, and the world is shaken by another depraved mass murder, carried out and claimed in the name of ISIS. This time, it is children who are targeted. And just like the countless other times before, the mass media coverage seems stuck on a loop: the same few videos of victims panicking, anguished parents waiting for their children, and distraught mothers sobbing dominate our screens, playing again and again and again and again.
ISIS has a media strategy, and unfortunately, it is aimed exactly at generating this type of coverage. In fact, this media strategy is instinctively shared with other sensational mass killers — school shooters, white-supremacist terrorists, and others. They crave the distorted infamy they hope they will get after their death; they carefully prepare manifestos they hope will be published; they record videos they hope will be played on loop on cable TV.
Such mass murderers often meticulously collect clippings of media from past such incidents and obsessively follow the coverage. They “admire” and seek to emulate those who increased the numbers of victims.
In the case of ISIS, this stems not from instinct, but from a strategic understanding of the need for escalation to increase the coverage and horror.
And again and again, we are playing into their game, on their terms.
Don’t get me wrong — I have the same visceral reaction as any other person. I understand the statistics: Traffic kills many more children each day. I understand that war and suffering are chronic problems for children around the world
No amount of intellectual analysis of statistics is going to stop me from sobbing upon hearing that children at a concert were blown up by murderers so depraved and cowardly that we lack language to describe the depth of their depravity and cowardliness. That, however, is not an excuse for not understanding the fact that these acts are carried out exactly because this very human, very visceral reaction makes it hard for us to modulate our response, and to react in a way that works against the goals of the killers.
Even if the visceral reaction is acceptable, it is no longer acceptable to have the mass media react to this again and again as if the killers were the shadow producers of a reprehensible reality show on TV.
One could argue that social media virality is part of the problem, but I have to say: People on social media have gotten better and better at this.
ISIS is so attuned to media coverage that it’s produced snuff films — beheadings — at great expense
these men have always been media and social media geniuses. They always had a disproportionate media budget in the millions of dollars
It is not a coincidence that many ISIS videos resemble Call of Duty–type first-person-shooter military-recruiting-oriented games, just set to different music, with different enemies. Seeking to shape mass media coverage is just one more step in this strategy.
Indeed, if you look at the murderers — especially those from Europe — who join ISIS, a clear pattern arises. They are young men adrift, failing socially, personally and politically.
For the lost petty criminals in Europe, that’s the lure of ISIS: to channel their frustration and sociopathy into a cause larger than themselves, to get the fame and recognition they seek, however distorted, and to finally have a chance to give that in-your-face middle finger to society, they hope, as a looping video on BBC or CNN or MSNBC or Fox, or as a viral video on social media. Indeed, that fits with current ISIS strategy: It doesn’t necessarily recruit or train as much as “inspire” and claim.
We don’t have to do this. We can give such news incidents the coverage they deserve, somber and proportional, while respecting and embracing the victims.
We can and should do this for terrorism and mass shootings. The guidelines won’t be the same, but the outlines are clear. Don’t go into loop mode. Mention names of killers sparingly. Avoid their photos, manifestos, and coverage they left behind for us except in brief mentions. Don’t overreact. Report news when there is news. Don’t retraumatize victims.
While the individual killers may be losers — Donald Trump called them that, and he is right
ISIS is pursuing a deliberate strategy, one aimed to horrify the public so much that we go along with a set of irrational policies, such as massive bombings of areas where they also hold many civilians hostage.
There is a better way: Let’s kick off the murderers from the producer seat. Let’s deprive them of our attention on their terms. Let’s embrace the victims, and their families, across the globe, not just here but also over there. Don’t splash the names and faces of the killers on TV; don’t repeat their manifestos on loop. Each death is horrible, but that isn’t a reason to exaggerate the power or the reach of the killers.
Terrorism is mass murder with a media strategy; it’s long past time to disrupt it.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Tom Grubisich / Street Fight:
Borrell report details how local media organizations can prosper in the age of Facebook and Google, says publishers and advertisers need to collaborate
Borrell: Too Many Local Newspapers Remain Stuck in Their Newsroom ‘Church’
http://streetfightmag.com/2017/05/25/borrell-too-many-local-newspapers-remain-stuck-in-their-newsroom-church/
Content is king. But newspapers especially should heed the lament of Shakespeare’s King Henry IV: “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.”
Those words echo through Borrell’s recently published update to its “Benchmarking Local Media Digital Revenue.” The most telling revenue numbers in the report are how Facebook, whose news content is much less trusted by Internet users, according to a BuzzFeed-commissioned survey, far outperforms newspapers as well as broadcasters, cablers and other local media operations.
Facebook collected $13.6 billion in local digital ad spending in the U.S. in 2016, according to the report — more than all local media’s digital revenues put together — $12 billion.
The report says Facebook, Google and other global pureplays will continue to dominate digital ad revenue that comes from merchants and other businesses at the community level. But it says local media organizations – particularly newspapers and other news publishers — not only can survive but prosper, if they’re enterprising.
It singled out the Washington Post, whose digital ad revenue in 2016 soared 45% to $130 million.
“Advertisers don’t want to be around news readers,” he said. “They want to be around very specific types of individuals. If general news content can extract from its audience very specific data – for example, the reader is a male between the ages of 18 and 30 and who plays video games, and can be served up a video game ad, yes, that will work.”
So what should newspaper publishers do? I asked Borrell. “Collaborate with advertisers. There has to be a great deal more collaboration. Journalists have to come out of the newsroom ‘church’ and meet the people and understand what’s going on in the entire media ecosystem.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Laura Hazard Owen / Nieman Lab:
The four key elements of a successful fake news story: emotional appeal, veneer of authority, effective insertion point, and an amplification network — Plus: The faces of a Russian botnet, an
Want to stop a spreading fake news story? Choose one of these four points of attack to fight back
http://www.niemanlab.org/2017/05/want-to-stop-a-spreading-fake-news-story-choose-one-of-these-four-points-of-attack-to-fight-back/
Plus: The faces of a Russian botnet, an alt-right newsletter to subscribe to, and “falsehoods in a forest of facts.”
The growing stream of reporting on and data about fake news, misinformation, partisan content, and news literacy is hard to keep up with.
The four key elements of a successful fake news story.
1. Emotional appeal
2. Veneer of authority: Story traces itself back to a leak or statement or something that supposedly happened.
3. Effective insertion point into the online space.
4. An amplification network (like Twitter or Facebook)
A successful fake news story has these four traits, Ben Nimmo, information defense fellow at the international affairs think tank Atlantic Council, said Thursday.
Outlets that want to debunk fake news need to consider which of these four elements of a fake story is “the weak link in the chain” and attack from there, Nimmo said.
Some “really nasty” stuff, meanwhile, didn’t make it as far outside niche groups, suggesting that fake content that is too extreme will not spread. Wardle pointed to a recent BuzzFeed article on the “psychology of what works” with fake news.
Here’s How Far-Right Trolls Are Spreading Hoaxes About French Presidential Candidate Emmanuel Macron
https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/heres-how-far-right-trolls-are-spreading-hoaxes-about?utm_term=.ghaXMZ7xP4#.eu3OwAz1kM
“Meme Macron out of existence… We need to stop this creep Macron from cucking up Europe.” WARNING: This post contains graphic images.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Hamilton Nolan / Fusion:
The real threat to journalism is concentration of media in the hands of rich owners with ulterior motives — This week, one little attack on a reporter by a temporarily insane politician has us all fretting over the “Rough Treatment of Journalists in the Trump Era.” The real threat to journalism is much more insidious.
Snakes and Money Are the Real Threats to Journalism
http://fusion.kinja.com/snakes-and-money-are-the-real-threats-to-journalism-1795577366
This week, one little attack on a reporter by a temporarily insane politician has us all fretting over the “Rough Treatment of Journalists in the Trump Era.” The real threat to journalism is much more insidious.
It’s not mean words that threaten journalism in America. It’s money. The advertising market of the future will be concentrated overwhelmingly in the hands of a few enormous tech companies. Facebook and Google control not just the online traffic that feeds the media, but also the ad dollars that keep them afloat. It is increasingly clear that legacy media like newspapers—the places that everyone thinks of as the headwaters of “good journalism,” where News Itself is born before it flows out to TV and radio and internet aggregators—are only able to survive as luxury products for the rich. Rich owners, that is. Yes, newspaper owners have always been rich, but in the past, they made their money from newspapers. (The robust earnings of pre-internet newspapers insulated them from financial pressures and allowed the “journalistic ethics” we now consider standard to flourish. There are no ethics without, first, money to pay for them.)
Now they must make their money elsewhere, then buy a newspaper for the same reason they might buy an expensive artwork. It’s a prestige toy. There are a handful of national papers still able to sustain themselves, but there are many more that can’t, and the trend lines are not good.
So, the newspapers will be toys of the rich, and the online media will be completely at the mercy of Facebook. We are entering an era in which, more than ever before, journalism is dependent on hoping that rich people are good and not bad. That has not been a historically promising bet.
Even the rich people in this equation who have proven themselves to be relatively good
The worst case scenario is that journalism just dries up and disappears. But that is unlikely as long as a market exists for it.
Any rich guy with ulterior motives can buy a newspaper, and any political hack can sit in the editor’s chair and call himself an editor. If the rest of the journalism world is not thriving and independent and bold, these people come to represent what journalism is. It’s not the body slams we need to worry about. It’s the fucking snakes.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Kara Bloomgarden-Smoke / WWD:
Traffic to women’s magazines over past year as they go digital: Vogue up 25.6%, Teen Vogue up 176%, W nearly doubled, Glamour down 1.6%, Allure up 53%
Here’s How Top Women’s Magazines Are Doing Online
The most recent comScore data provides a snapshot of the transition to digital.
http://wwd.com/business-news/media/heres-how-top-womens-magazines-are-doing-online-10892563/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Selina Wang / Bloomberg:
How apps like De Dao, fewer entertainment options, and widespread adoption of mobile payments are fueling a paid content boom in China — For years, China was known mostly for copying U.S. innovations. Now, the copy-catting is flowing the other way. — Back in early 2016 …
Why the Chinese Will Pay for Content That Americans Won’t
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-23/why-the-chinese-will-pay-for-content-that-americans-won-t
For years, China was known mostly for copying U.S. innovations. Now, the copy-catting is flowing the other way.
Back in early 2016, Li Xiang was just another overworked magazine editor in Beijing. Then along came an opportunity to produce a business newsletter on a brand-new app called De Dao. In just a few months that app—which means “I Get” in English—had attracted millions of users looking for daily advice and to learn everything from music to economics. And Li? Within months, he had close to 100,000 subscribers paying about $30 a year—which works out to almost $3 million in annual revenue.
It’s the kind of story that couldn’t happen in the United States, where many people believe content should be free. In China, meanwhile, companies and individuals alike have managed to monetize smartphone apps, making money from news, entertainment and social media—by making people directly pay for it, instead of relying on advertisers.
Paying for online content goes way beyond just education. Video livestreaming is also huge. All over China, millions of people watch anything from people singing, telling jokes, or just going about their daily lives. Think of those random videos you can find on YouTube, but happening live. People can watch for free but show the hosts their adoration by sending them virtual gifts, like a digital car or rose. The streamers can then exchange those gifts for cash.
Another factor driving this trend: widespread adoption of mobile payments. For millions of people in China, a smartphone was their first internet-connected device.
Tomi Engdahl says:
How Facebook Can Fight the Hate
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-05-25/how-facebook-can-fight-the-hate
The platform has long been an accelerant for extremist thought. Can it also be a deterrent?
Counternarrative is a little-known but important element of Facebook’s plan to address online extremism. The issue has taken on new urgency since the election of Donald Trump and the rise of right-wing, anti-immigrant parties in Western Europe and Asia. In Germany, where Facebook has 29 million members, lawmakers recently introduced legislation requiring internet companies to remove content flagged as hate speech within 24 hours. The proposed fine is €50 million ($55.6 million) for the companies and as high as €5 million for executives charged with failing to act quickly. This is occurring as Facebook’s relationship with European regulators grows increasingly frosty: On May 18 the EU’s antitrust chief fined the company €110 million for making misleading statements about a 2014 acquisition.
Despite spending millions of dollars and hiring armies of contractors around the world, social media companies often can’t delete hateful posts fast enough. Extremists set up accounts as quickly as the old ones are shut down, and it’s easy for bad stuff to slip through. “We review over 100 million pieces of content every month,” Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg wrote on his page on Feb. 16. “Even if our reviewers get 99% of the calls right, that’s still millions of errors over time.” The chance for something to slip through is particularly high with live video posts.
Facebook announced it would hire 3,000 more people to monitor content. Even that may not be enough.
That’s why the company hopes activists such as Baldauf employing innovative techniques might help attack extremism and hatred at its source.
President Obama pressured representatives of Silicon Valley to do more to combat terrorism. Heeding the call, Facebook started holding student competitions and dayslong hackathons to develop digital tools to push back against online hate. Early efforts had limited results
Peter Neumann, who runs the center, says the biggest challenge is figuring out the link between the popularity of content, as measured by shares or likes, and actual changes in behavior. In most cases, hate speech has no impact on people who see it. But for a minority, exposure to Islamic State content, for example, can lead to growing admiration for the terrorist group. An even smaller subset might be motivated to travel to Syria or carry out an attack.
The program highlighted the way content removal can backfire.
If a British teen reposts a jihadi video and gets his account taken away, for example, it doesn’t hurt Islamic State. Instead, it squanders a chance to reach the teen with countermessaging and potentially prevent his being recruited by the terror group.
Other internet giants are experimenting with similar techniques. In 2015, Google Jigsaw, a division of Alphabet Inc. dedicated to using technology to eradicate online extremism, ran a pilot called the Redirect Method in which it altered results for search queries that people leaning toward joining Islamic State might use, such as “What is jihad?” People searching for these phrases were then shown ads for counternarrative videos. The click-thru rate was 75 percent better than for the average search ad, Google says.
Facebook does something similar when it serves up suicide prevention messages
Tomi Engdahl says:
Dan Goodin / Ars Technica:
Citizen Lab report details how emails phished from journalist critical of Russia were falsified, then leaked for disinformation campaign; 200+ others targeted
E-mails phished from Russian critic were “tainted” before being leaked
Campaign targeting more than 200 people also spread disinformation, report says.
https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/05/e-mails-phished-from-russian-critic-were-tainted-before-being-leaked/
E-mails stolen in a phishing attack on a prominent critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin were manipulated before being published on the Internet. That’s according to a report published Thursday, which also asserts that the e-mails were manipulated in order to discredit a steady stream of unfavorable articles.
The phishing attack on journalist David Satter’s Gmail account was strikingly similar to the one that hit Hillary Clinton presidential campaign chairman John Podesta last year.
Thursday’s report from the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab stopped short of saying Russia’s government was behind the phishing attack and subsequent manipulation of Satter’s e-mail. US intelligence officials, however, have determined that Russia was behind the attacks on Podesta and other Democratic officials. Thursday’s report also said the same attack on Satter targeted 218 other individuals, including a former Russian prime minister, members of cabinets from Europe and Eurasia, ambassadors, high-ranking military officers, and CEOs of energy companies.
Some of the documents obtained in the phishing attack on Satter were published by CyberBerkut, a self-described pro-Russian group. One e-mail was heavily edited to make Satter appear to be paying Russian reporters and activists to write stories critical of the Russian government. The edited e-mail gave the impression the articles were part of a large and non-existent project to pay for articles by a range of authors, which would subsequently be published by a range of media outlets.
While Guccifer 2.0 has long claimed to be a Romanian activist, US intelligence officials have said they believe the figure works on behalf of the Russian military.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Emily Bell / The Guardian:
The New York Times’ coverage of the Manchester bombing illustrates the differences between US and UK reporting cultures
NYT’s publication of leaked Manchester material reveals transatlantic differences
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/28/nyt-leaked-manchester-material-reveals-transatlantic-differences
When it comes to making decisions about national security coverage, US journalism follows a different set of priorities
The New York Times last week attracted controversy and criticism for its use of leaked material relating to the suicide bombing attack on the Manchester Arena. CJ Chivers, the news organisation’s highly experienced Pulitzer-winning reporter who was himself once a member of the military, obtained leaked information including photos of the detonator, the backpack and the types of ballistics used in the attack as well as intelligence on the positioning of the bomber and the victims.
The anger of the police and UK government that they had lost control of intelligence material was accompanied by members of the public and other news organisations condemning the insensitive nature of the report.
The blatant disregard for the wishes of UK intelligence could be interpreted as a deliberate challenge from the US, or as a mark of disorganisation and lack of leadership in the current and notoriously rackety regime. It could equally be a reflection of the fact that when it comes to making decisions about national security coverage, US journalism follows a different set of priorities.
It was not just politicians, however, who criticised the publication, but journalists too. Frank Gardner, the BBC’s security correspondent, described the pictures as “utterly disrespectful to the victims and their families” as well as compromising to the investigation.
For its part, although the New York Times has a growing presence in Europe, the decision to publish was taken in New York, and the news organisation issued a robust defence of the use of the pictures.
In general, journalists should not be in the business of withholding material from the public, even when the material is upsetting and the decision to publish uncomfortable and unpopular. But the world is very different from how it was even in 2010. Now there is a question too of speed of dissemination and the size of the online audience. Does publishing a piece of important information always fit into the real-time news cycle? Are there instance where a pause is not only tolerable, but advisable?
In the last election cycle in the US, the leak became a weaponised method of advancing political agendas. The WikiLeaks publication of a trove of emails hacked from Hillary Clinton’s campaign operatives being a high-profile example. Coming as the leak did, in the closing stages of the campaign, US news outlets including the NYT were blasted for the attention they gave the ultimately inconsequential documents.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Peter Maass / The Intercept:
Government employees who share embarrassing information, not journalists, are the real target of President Trump’s campaign against leaks — Wars are rarely announced in advance, but President Trump provided an abundance of warning about his intention to wage an assault on journalism.
Donald Trump’s War on Journalism Has Begun. But Journalists Are Not His Main Target.
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/28/donald-trumps-war-on-journalism-has-begun-but-journalists-are-not-his-main-target/
Wars are rarely announced in advance, but President Trump provided an abundance of warning about his intention to wage an assault on journalism. During the election campaign, he called journalists an “enemy of the people” and described media organizations he didn’t like as “fake news.”
“These leaks have been going on for a long time, and my administration will get to the bottom of this,” Trump warned in a statement on Thursday. “The leaks of sensitive information pose a grave threat to our national security. I am asking the Department of Justice and other relevant agencies to launch a complete review of this matter, and if appropriate, the culprit should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
Trump is known for his post-thinking bluster but here he means what he suggests about indictments. Of course he’s using national security as a fig leaf to obscure his principal concern about the damage to his own image, which is being shredded.
Journalists are not the real target of Trump’s war on journalism, however. We are the highly-visible collateral damage, the broken glasses on the bruised body of free expression. The true targets – the people whom the Trump administration most wants to punish and silence – are the government officials who provide us with the news for our stories. The First Amendment protects journalists but not their sources; there is no constitutional right to tell journalists the truth.
These people, our sources, are incredibly vulnerable, lacking in most cases the financial and legal resources that are available to most journalists.
If you are a journalist and the government goes after you, the odds are quite good that your employer will strongly support you, but a government leaker faces the opposite predicament – their employer is the one attacking them.
Financial ruin usually comes next.
Today’s leakers can expect no mercy from the incensed Trump administration
Tomi Engdahl says:
Cyber Interference – the Changing the Face of Elections
http://www.securityweek.com/cyber-interference-changing-face-elections
Influential Organizations and Individuals or Those With Ties to Government or Political Institutions May be Targets for Cyber Attacks
Last fall I wrote about cyber as the latest front on the election battlefield. This was based on two trends that emerged during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election cycle – a series of network breaches that resulted in leaked information, and an uptick in concerns over threats to voting systems. This proved to be a sign of things to come. Since then, similar activities have been reported surrounding elections in The Netherlands and France. With elections coming up in the UK in June and Germany in September what type of cyber interference might we expect? And, more importantly, what steps can we take to mitigate risk?
In the case of the UK elections, two factors are working against cyber attackers – because it is a snap election threat actors haven’t had as much time to prepare, and voting is still paper based. However the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre warns that the political parties themselves remain targets as do parliament, constituency offices, think tanks and individuals’ email accounts.
Network Intrusions: Network intrusions are typically conducted for intelligence-gathering purposes, potentially with a view to making sensitive information public as part of an influence operation designed to discredit a political candidate.
Public Data Leakage: An ideologically motivated actor may attempt to release sensitive or confidential information citing freedom of information and the fulfilment of a public service.
Hacktivism: Hacktivist actors are most often motivated by public attention, either for themselves or the issues they claim to represent. DoS attempts, website defacements and public data leaks achieved through techniques such as SQL injection are the most common types of attacks. Hactivists may also use social media to raise awareness, for example using “tweet storms,”
False media reports: We’ve heard a lot about “fake news” as of late, but threat actors may indeed disseminate false information to influence public opinion or discredit a particular candidate. They may use a wide variety of media including established online publications, spoof news sites, or through fake social media profiles on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Dan Goodin / Ars Technica:
Citizen Lab report details how emails phished from journalist critical of Russia were falsified, then leaked for disinformation campaign; 200+ others targeted
E-mails phished from Russian critic were “tainted” before being leaked
Campaign targeting more than 200 people also spread disinformation, report says.
https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/05/e-mails-phished-from-russian-critic-were-tainted-before-being-leaked/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Nicholas Vinocur / Politico:20 minutes ago
Standing next to Putin, new French President Emmanuel Macron labels Russian-backed media outlets RT and Sputnik “propaganda” that spread falsehoods — French and Russian presidents met in Versailles. — PARIS — French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday called Russian state …
Macron, standing by Putin, calls RT and Sputnik ‘agents of influence’
French and Russian presidents met in Versailles.
http://www.politico.eu/article/macron-and-putin-agree-on-restart-of-ukraine-talks/
French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday called Russian state-backed media outlets RT and Sputnik “agents of influence” that spread falsehoods about him during his election campaign — while standing next to Vladimir Putin.
Macron said the two media organizations “did not behave like press outlets, but behaved like agents of influence and propaganda” which spread “serious falsehoods,” Macron said. “I will never give in to that.”
It was Macron’s first time meeting Putin.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Mark Sweney / The Guardian:
Over two dozen EU publishers ask regulators to rethink a proposed law that would require an opt-in or opt-out for cookie tracking within browsers and apps — Warning that new regulations will give Google, Apple and Facebook too much control of advertising and personal data
Publishers call for rethink of proposed changes to online privacy laws
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/29/publishers-call-for-rethink-of-proposed-changes-to-online-privacy-laws?CMP=twt_a-media_b-gdnmedia
Warning that new regulations will give Google, Apple and Facebook too much control of advertising and personal data
An alliance of news publishers has called on European regulators to rethink proposed changes to online privacy laws, arguing that they will potentially kill their digital businesses and give Google, Apple and Facebook too much control of advertising and personal data.
More than two dozen leading publishers – including the Financial Times, Guardian, Le Monde, Spiegel, Telegraph, Daily Mail and Les Echoes – have signed a letter to the European parliament, which is deliberating proposals to tighten up how data is gathered and used by web companies.
Currently, when users visit an individual website or app they are asked if they will consent to a cookietracking them. Under the European commission’s plans, consumers will in the future instead be asked to make a single choice to accept, or reject, cookies from all websites and apps only on one single occasion on their phone or browser.
Publishers argue that creating a single “switch” will most likely result in consumers taking the simplest route of opting out of all cookies, leaving them with scant information to support their targeted advertising models.
In turn, this would leave the few digital giants used by most consumers to access the web, and those like Facebook that have their own giant data mining capability, in control.
The proposals are likely to further exacerbate the huge issue publishers already face as Google and Facebook sweep up as much as 90% of all new digital display advertising.
“The practice of serving relevant advertising to readers is now an established norm in the advertising industry, and is essential to ensure that publishers can compete with Google and Facebook who already control 20% of total global advertising spend,” the letter says.
“Citizens are rightly concerned about the use of their personal data by third-party companies of whom they have never heard, and have no idea about the role that they play in their digital lives online,” the letter says.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Lucinda Southern / Digiday:
FT says that each post on WhatsApp drives a comparable amount of traffic as a post on FT’s Twitter account, while 80% of readers via the app are non-subscribers — The Financial Times has been broadcasting stories through WhatsApp for the past year as a way of reaching new readers …
Why the Financial Times is going vertical on WhatsApp to drive subscribers
https://digiday.com/media/ft-going-niche-whatsapp-drive-subscribers/
Tomi Engdahl says:
G7 Demands Internet Giants Crack Down on Extremist Content
http://www.securityweek.com/g7-demands-internet-giants-crack-down-extremist-content
Taormina, Italy – The G7 nations on Friday demanded action from internet providers and social media firms against extremist content online, vowing to step up their fight against terrorism after the Manchester attack.
“The G7 calls for Communication Service Providers and social media companies to substantially increase their efforts to address terrorist content,” Britain, the United States and their G7 partners said in a statement.
“We encourage industry to act urgently in developing and sharing new technology and tools to improve the automatic detection of content promoting incitement to violence, and we commit to supporting industry efforts in this vein including the proposed industry-led forum for combating online extremism,” they said.
Elders at the Manchester mosque where the bomber sometimes worshipped have insisted that they preached a message of peace.
It has been suggested that he may well have been radicalized online by accessing content that is freely available from the likes of the Islamic State group.
“Make no mistake: the fight is moving from the battlefield to the internet,” Prime Minister Theresa May told her G7 colleagues.
Tomi Engdahl says:
BuzzFeed:
At least 30 sites in six languages invite people to create and spread fake news stories on Facebook, generating more than 13M engagements in the past 12 months
Trolls Are Targeting Indian Restaurants With A Create-Your-Own Fake News Site
https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/create-your-own-fake-news-sites-are-booming-on-facebook-and?utm_term=.dcQ48MvpxJ#.lpX6JL148M
At least 30 websites invite people to make up a fake news story and share it on Facebook. Over the past 12 months the articles have generated more than 13 million engagements on the social network.
Begum eventually tracked down the origin of the false rumor: A website called Channel23news.com had published a story claiming that her restaurant, Karri Twist, was caught selling human meat and that its owner had been arrested. The completely fake report, replete with spelling mistakes and the wrong name of the owner, featured a picture of Karri Twist and said nine bodies had been found on the premises in the freezer.
The story looked like any other news report when shared on Facebook, and it quickly spread on the site, as well as on Twitter and WhatsApp. People who clicked on the link were brought to a page with the story, and beside it was text that read, “You’ve Been Pranked! Now Create A Story & Trick Your Friends!” Channel23News.com’s homepage is in fact a form that enables anyone to create a fake news story, add an image, and instantly share it on Facebook.
Thanks to a fake article someone had created on the site, an Indian restaurant that has been in business since 1957 was in danger of closing.
Channel23news.com isn’t an isolated make-your-own-fake-news site. Using domain registration records, BuzzFeed News identified two separate networks that together own at least 30 nearly identical “prank” news sites and that published more than 3,000 fake articles in six languages over the past 12 months. They’re also generating significant engagement on Facebook: The sites collectively earned more than 13 million shares, reactions, and comments on the social network in the last 12 months.
A Facebook spokesperson told BuzzFeed News it will continue to roll out programs and product updates to make it harder for spammers and fake-news creators to make money from its platform.
“A huge motivation for the spammers who trade in false news is their own profit — and we’ve recently launched new updates to disrupt their financial incentives and curb the spread of this type of material,” they said. “There’s more work to do, and people should know we remain absolutely committed to it.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Poll: Mass Media Has Duped Democrats Into Believing Russia Hacked Voting Machines
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/poll-mass-media-has-duped-democrats-into-believing-russia-hacked-voting-machines-e0cd0e7e9d17
A recent YouGov poll shows that most Democrats believe it is “definitely true” or “probably true” that Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected. These poll results have been out for more than a week, so naturally one could expect a Google search to turn up a bunch of articles by the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN and other mainstream media outlets hastening to correct this widespread misinformation.
Right?
Of course not. There are precisely zero establishment outlets correcting this completely evidence-free belief that has become so widespread
This proves intent.
the September 11 terrorist attacks in the same breath as they mentioned the falsified intelligence reports stating that the Iraqi government had weapons of mass destruction
n exactly the same way, reports and headlines marrying the words “election” and “hacking” have deliberately created this misperception among liberal Americans. Establishment politicians have been using their mass media-aided platforms to advance this false narrative as well
Mass media outlets could correct this widespread false perception, but they choose not to.
The majority of Democrats believe that Russia directly manipulated America’s vote tallies because the ruling class wants the majority of Democrats to believe that Russia directly manipulated America’s vote tallies. The more fear and hostility they can generate toward Russia, the more escalation and confrontation the public will unquestioningly consent to.
The alternative media threatens the establishment’s ability to do things like this, which is why they completely lose their shit whenever the public gets interested in a narrative that the establishment didn’t authorize
Tomi Engdahl says:
Clinton: ’email account was turned into the biggest scandal since Lord knows when’
https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/31/clinton-email-account-was-turned-into-the-biggest-scandal-since-lord-knows-when/
Hillary Clinton appeared onstage at Code Conference on Wednesday in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif. and reflected on why she lost the U.S. 2016 presidential election.
Unsurprisingly, the widespread coverage of her unsecured email usage was a sour point. The “email account was turned into the biggest scandal since Lord knows when.” She griped that the “mainstream media covered that like Pearl Harbor.”
“It was a mistake,” she acknowledged. But “the way that it was used was very damaging.”
Clinton also felt that former FBI director James Comey had a lot to do with the perception that she was a criminal.
Social media played a larger role than ever in the 2016 election and Clinton had some thoughts about Twitter and Facebook.
“The vast majority of the news items posted were fake,” she said about Facebook.
Clinton also spoke about the role that data played in “weaponizing” information on social media and other online platforms. She talked about how the RNC built a giant data trove after the loss of the 2012 presidential election.
Clinton is also in favor of tech billionaires buying more newspapers, like Jeff Bezos did with the Washington Post. “Jeff Bezos saved the Washington Post,”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Hillary Clinton Calls Email Scandal Fake News and ‘Biggest Nothing Burger Ever’
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emails-fake-news-618557
Apparently still not over her shock election defeat to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that the investigation into her handling of emails was covered like “Pearl Harbor,” but that in reality the story was the “biggest nothing burger ever.”
The issue returned to prominence just days before November’s election, when then-FBI Director James Comey notified Congress about new emails being under investigation. Clinton claimed that while the story was effectively—to borrow a term from her opponent—“fake news,” it was one of the biggest contributors to her defeat, helped by media outlets that covered it “like Pearl Harbor.”
During the talk, she also attached plenty of responsibility to alleged Russian hacking of her campaign chairman’s emails, which she repeatedly suggested required the support of someone connected to the Trump campaign.
“The Russians, in my opinion, could not have known how best to weaponize that information unless they had been guided by Americans,” she said.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Colin Lecher / The Verge:
Hillary Clinton urges social media platforms to do more curating and editorial decision-making “instead of being overwhelmed by the challenge”
Hillary Clinton urges platforms to ‘hurry up’ and fix moderation
https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/31/15720544/hillary-clinton-code-conference
In an interview today at Code Conference, Hillary Clinton urged social media platforms to figure out new ways to slow “the weaponization and manipulation” of information, admitting at the same time that it was a difficult problem to solve.
“I have a lot of sympathy at this point… for people trying to make these decisions,” she said toward the end of her interview with Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg. “I would just urge them to hurry up.”
She encouraged platforms to err “more on the curating, editorial decision-making” side of the equation, “instead of being overwhelmed by the challenge.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
The Internet Defines ‘Covfefe’
https://www.wired.com/2017/05/internet-defines-covfefe/
Leave it to Donald Trump to keep Twitter guessing. Just after midnight Eastern this morning, the president did what the president often does at odd hours: He sent out a tweet. But this one, rather than attacking a political opponent or offering up a 140-character policy position, just plain made no sense: “Despite the constant negative press covfefe.” Wait, “covfefe”? No one knew what it meant. Surely it was a mistake that the president would soon delete. But after five minutes, he didn’t. Then a few more passed. Before long, social media was in a mad dash to try to define Trump’s typo. News reports followed, and soon a five-alarm internet fire was burning.
When Trump was elected last fall, the not-so-funny joke on 4chan was that the United States had “elected a meme as president.” This has never felt more true than in the past couple weeks
But President Trump’s latest Twitter faux pas didn’t just provide the internet something to laugh at, it played to its greatest strength: Giving meaning to the meaningless. Nearly every great meme starts with an obscure word, hashtag, or image that is then granted humor based on what the internet does with it.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Trump the world’s leaders who has social media best kept
In January, the US president, started the Donald Trump is based on the study of social media strongly taken over.
Trump has collected 166 million likes and splits on Twitter messages. This is clearly the highest level of readiness among world leaders.
In addition, the official US president, also Trump’s Twitter account, has collected 11 million likes and divisions.
In summary, one could conclude that the crown of skepticism of world leaders seems to be presently with President Donald Trump. He is ranked at the top of the score with all the meters used in the study.
Source: http://www.tivi.fi/Kaikki_uutiset/trumpilla-maailman-johtajista-sosiaalinen-media-parhaiten-hallussa-6653789
Tomi Engdahl says:
Julia Fioretti / Reuters:
After committing to EU to remove hate speech, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Microsoft remove 59% of hate speech in 24 hours on average, up from 28% in Dec.
Social media firms have increased removals of online hate speech: EU
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-hatespeech-idUSKBN18S3FO
Social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google’s YouTube have stepped up both the speed and number of removals of hate speech on their platforms in response to pressure from the European Union to do more to tackle the issue, according to the results of an EU evaluation.
“This … shows that a self-regulatory approach can work, if all actors do their part. At the same time, companies … need to make further progress to deliver on all the commitments,” Jourova said in a statement
Tomi Engdahl says:
George Slefo / Ad Age:
Google says it will preinstall an ad filter in Chrome starting early 2018 aimed at ads deemed “annoying” by the Coalition for Better Ads — Google’s Chrome browser will soon come with preinstalled technology that will block the most annoying ads currently marring the web experience, the company confirmed on Thursday.
Google Chrome Will Automatically Block Annoying Ads
http://adage.com/article/digital/official-google-chrome-ad-blocker/309238/
Google’s Chrome browser will soon come with preinstalled technology that will block the most annoying ads currently marring the web experience, the company confirmed on Thursday.
Publishers will be able to understand how they will be affected through a tool Google is dubbing “The Ad Experience Report.” It will basically score a publisher’s site and inform them which of their ads are “annoying experiences.”
At the same time, Chrome will give publishers the option to force a choice on people running their own ad blocking software: whitelist the site so its non-annoying ads can display or pay a small fee to access the content ad-free.
The moves, which had been anticipated since word got out in April but hadn’t been previously confirmed by Google, will impact the entire advertising ecosystem because Chrome is the most popular web browser for both desktop and mobile.
“We’ve all known for a while that the ad experience is a real problem, and that it’s confused and angered users,” Sridhar Ramaswamy, senior VP of ads and commerce at Google, told Ad Age. “We realized solutions like ad blockers punish everybody, including publishers who develop great content and are thoughtful about the ad experience they put on their site.”
Google isn’t calling its technology an ad blocker, instead classifying it as a “filter” that removes the ads that consumers hate most. These include popups, ads that flash quickly, change colors or force people to wait 10 seconds before accessing content on a publisher’s page.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Chris Welch / The Verge:
YouTube updates “ad friendly” guidelines, takes a stronger stance on hateful and demeaning content, and inappropriate use of family entertainment characters
YouTube adds more details, and restrictions, around which videos can be monetized
More guidance for video creators and three new types of ad-unfriendly content
https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/1/15726092/youtube-ad-restrictions-offensive-content-monetization-hate-inappropriate
YouTube is taking new steps today to get a handle on content that might offend advertisers or, conversely, prevent a YouTube creator from monetizing their videos. Several major brands left the platform’s ad program recently to avoid being linked with hateful and offensive videos. And many creators were upset when videos they saw as benign started to be de-monetized.
YouTube has promised to give advertisers greater control over where their ads appear and to give creators a better sense of what they need to avoid if they want their videos to make money. Today the video service is expanding its creator guidelines on what constitutes an “ad-friendly” video, offering up more details about dos and don’ts, and, importantly, adding three new categories of videos that won’t be eligible for advertising.
YouTube is trying to walk a careful line with these new guidelines.
Lesson: Making advertiser-friendly content
https://creatoracademy.youtube.com/page/lesson/advertiser-friendly?cid=earn-money&hl=en&utm_source=blog&utm_medium=blog&utm_campaign=june-2017
If you’re interested in earning money from ads on YouTube, it’s important to understand YouTube’s ads policies and how advertisers choose where their ads appear.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Twitter CEO: It’s important to hear what Trump has to say
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/05/12/twitter-ceo-defends-trump-twitter/101589048/
Twitter’s CEO is shutting down critics who say his site gives President Trump a platform to launch controversial tweets from.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey defended President Trump’s use of his platform, emphasizing the importance of hearing from the man himself for the sake of accountability.
“I believe it’s really important to hear directly from our leadership. I believe it’s really important to hold him accountable. And I believe it’s really important to have these conversations out in the open rather than behind closed doors.”
He continued that taking the platforms away would lead to Trump’s dealings being left in the dark.
“Is that good for anyone?” Dorsey wondered.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Twitter founder: “If it is true that Trump would not be president without Twitter, I’m sorry”
Source: http://www.marmai.fi/uutiset/twitterin-perustaja-jos-on-totta-etta-trump-ei-olisi-presidentti-ilman-twitteria-olen-pahoillani-6651363