269 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2021
    1. Which makes them similar to “commonplace”: reusable in many places. But this connotation has led to a pejorative flavor of the German translation “Gemeinplatz” which means platitude. That’s why I prefer to call them ‘evergreen’ notes, although I am not sure if I am using this differentiation correctly.

      I've only run across the German "Gemeinplatz" a few times with this translation attached. Sad to think that this negative connotation has apparently taken hold. Even in English the word commonplace can have a somewhat negative connotation as well meaning "everyday, ordinary, unexceptional" when the point of commonplacing notes is specifically because they are surprising or extraordinary by definition.

      Your phrasing of "evergreen notes" seems close enough. I've seen some who might call the shorter notes you're making either "seedlings" or "budding" notes. Some may wait for bigger expansions of their ideas into 500-2000 word essays before they consider them "evergreen" notes. (Compare: https://maggieappleton.com/garden-history and https://notes.andymatuschak.org/Evergreen_notes). Of course this does vary quite a bit from person to person in my experience, so your phrasing certainly fits.

      I've not seen it crop up in the digital gardens or zettelkasten circles specifically but the word "evergreen" is used in the journalism space) to describe a fully formed article that can be re-used wholesale on a recurring basis. Usually they're related to recurring festivals, holidays, or cyclical stories like "How to cook the perfect Turkey" which might get recycled a week before Thanksgiving every year.

    1. I've been away from my local news sources for too long apparently.

      Sad to see this one go. Perhaps there's some potential synergies to be had with other local papers and online outlets? Perhaps the staff and ideology of the Alhambra Source could be folded into something else local?

      Thoughts Wafic?

    1. It would be interesting to see what the “top news stories” looked like if you could only gather them every three months.

      I have always appreciated this sort of journalism myself. Less worry about the Fear of Missing Out, or the kneejerk reactions to the news of the day. It also gives you more perspective. CNN and Fox News breaking news underline the fact that they often don't have many facts and the rest is simply dead air.

  2. May 2021
    1. Modeled after the investigation into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the legislation would establish an independent, 10-member commission that would make recommendations by the end of the year for securing the Capitol and preventing another insurrection.

      They are really desperate to paint this as an actual insurrection.

    1. Their care for the communities and the journalists and creators that serve them is not isolated to the people who are explicitly paid to care about such things. That sense of service permeates the whole company. Seeing that has been a unique experience.

      Care for the communities? Really?! I'm not so sure here...

      However, we’re not moving fast enough.

      I'm also a bit reticent about the We're not moving fast enough part. Sure we need to help out journalists, but usually moving fast in the social space has been a disservice to the user.

    1. This looks interesting, but not quite sure where they may be going. Looks like a company that Twitter has bought out.

  3. Apr 2021
    1. Despite mounting pressure from lawmakers and civil society organisations, Denmark is determined to push ahead with efforts to return refugees to war-torn Syria as it claims conditions in parts of the country have improved.

      I thought Reuters was supposed to be a neutral source?

    1. This looks fascinating. I'm not so much interested in the coding/programming part as I am the actual "working in public" portions as they relate to writing, thinking, blogging in the open and sharing that as part of my own learning and growth as well as for sharing that with a broader personal learning network. I'm curious what lessons might be learned within this frame or how educators and journalists might benefit from it.

    1. A tool targeted at journalists that appears to be a silo-based app for backing up/archiving articles on the web as well as providing analytics, newsletter/email functionalities, and other options.

  4. Mar 2021
    1. The United States has no real answer to these challenges, and no wonder: We don’t have an internet based on our democratic values of openness, accountability, and respect for human rights. An online system controlled by a tiny number of secretive companies in Silicon Valley is not democratic but rather oligopolistic, even oligarchic.

      Again, a piece that nudges me to thing that a local-based IndieWeb provider/solution would be a good one. Either co-op based, journalism-based, or library-based.

    1. Paywall success stories are a mix of specialized news, often catering to the ultrawealthy (WSJ), superstar news orgs focused on specific national and international news (NYT) or news with billionaire backstops (WP). The civic function of news is not met by any of these models. But reader-supported, open access news, like Canadaland and The Halifax Examiner are filling in the gaps. The co-op model is a most welcome adjunct to these success stories.

      List of business models for news.

    2. A news co-op is a news organization owned by its readers, whose membership fees pay for open access journalism – no paywall – usually organized as nonprofits (an IRS rule-change lets for-profit newspaper convert to nonprofits).

      I'm sort of wishing that we could also have social media co-ops. I suspect that there are a few on Mastodon that operate like this, but it would be interesting to see some focused around in-person communities as well.

      Why couldn't my local library run a town/city-based social media co-op?

      For this matter, why couldn't my local news co-op also run it's own social media platform?

    1. Q: Can I access my personal comment history? A: No, there will not be a way to access archived comments.

      In this instance, it's similar to a site death taking one's data off-line. This is a good reason to post one's comments on their own site first.

    2. Q: So, this means you don’t value hearing from readers?A: Not at all. We engage with readers every day, and we are constantly looking for ways to hear and share the diversity of voices across New Jersey. We have built strong communities on social platforms, and readers inform our journalism daily through letters to the editor. We encourage readers to reach out to us, and our contact information is available on this How To Reach Us page.

      We have built strong communities on social platforms

      They have? Really?! I think it's more likely the social platforms have built strong communities which happen to be talking about and sharing the papers content. The paper doesn't have any content moderation or control capabilities on any of these platforms.

      Now it may be the case that there are a broader diversity of voices on those platforms over their own comments sections. This means that a small proportion of potential trolls won't drown out the signal over the noise as may happen in their comments sections online.

      If the paper is really listening on the other platforms, how are they doing it? Isn't reading some or all of it a large portion of content moderation? How do they get notifications of people mentioning them (is it only direct @mentions)?

      Couldn't/wouldn't an IndieWeb version of this help them or work better.

    3. <small><cite class='h-cite via'> <span class='p-author h-card'>Inquirer.com</span> in Why we’re removing comments on most of Inquirer.com (<time class='dt-published'>03/18/2021 19:32:19</time>)</cite></small>

    1. Many news organizations have made the decision to eliminate or restrict comments in recent years, from National Public Radio, to The Atlantic, to NJ.com, which did a nice job of explaining the decision when comments were removed from its site.

      A list of journalistic outlets that have removed comments from their websites.

    2. Experience has shown that anything short of 24-hour vigilance on all stories is insufficient.
    3. Racism has been a persistent presence in Inquirer comments. The Inquirer is committed to making the changes required to be an actively anti-racist news organization. Removing comments is a step in the right direction, with many more to come.
    4. Commenting on Inquirer.com was long ago hijacked by a small group of trolls who traffic in racism, misogyny, and homophobia. This group comprises a tiny fraction of the Inquirer.com audience. But its impact is disproportionate and enduring.
    1. The riot saw five people including a police officer killed and shook the foundations of American democracy. The head of the Capitol police force later resigned.

      "Killed" is a completely inappropriate word; even if we accept that Officer Sicknick was "killed" (very debatable), three of the civilians who died perished of health related problems. This is clearly bad journalism.

  5. Feb 2021
    1. A fifth night of peaceful protests to denounce the imprisonment of a Spanish rap artist once more devolved into clashes between police and the members of fringe groups who set up street barricades and smashed storefront windows Saturday night in downtown Barcelona.

      Peaceful protests devolve into violence -- does this even really make them peaceful? Bizarre, lol.

    1. You cannot measure the health of journalism simply by looking at the number of editors and reporters on the payroll of newspapers. There are undoubtedly going to be fewer of them. The question is whether that loss is going to be offset by the tremendous increase in textual productivity we get from a connected web. Presuming, of course, that we don’t replace that web with glass boxes.

      The value of journalism must take account of the increase in textual productivity gained by the interconnected Internet and not solely by the number of editors, reporters, and size or number of newspapers.

      Of course we also need to account for the signal to noise ratio created by the masses of people who can say anything they like, which can also be compounded by the algorithmic feed of social platforms that give preference to the extremes and content that increases engagement (a measure which doesn't take into account the intrinsic value of the things which are shared.)

      How can we measure and prefer the content with more intrinsic value? Similar to the idea of fast food and healthier food? How can we help people to know the difference between the types of information they're consuming.

    2. When your digital news feed doesn’t contain links, when it cannot be linked to, when it can’t be indexed, when you can’t copy a paragraph and paste it into another application: when this happens your news feed is not flawed or backwards looking or frustrating. It is broken.

      If your news feed doesn't contain links, can't be linked to, indexed, or copied and pasted, it is broken.

      How can this be tied into the five R's of Open Education Resources: Retain, Reuse, Revise, Remix and/or Redistribute content (and perhaps my Revise/Request update ideas: https://boffosocko.com/2018/08/30/the-sixth-r-of-open-educational-resources-oer/)

    1. A fairly comprehensive list of problems and limitations that are often encountered with data as well as suggestions about who should be responsible for fixing them (from a journalistic perspective).

    2. More journalistic outlets should be publishing data explainers about where their data and analysis come from so that readers can double check it.

    1. “Media companies were investing a huge amount of time, money, and effort in building out these huge audiences on social media…but at the end of the day, they’re renting those audiences from social media [companies], as opposed to owning those relationships,” Donoghue said.

      Media companies are spending huge amounts of time investing in social media, but they're also simultaneously renting their audiences back.

      Who rents a $350/month apartment and then spends $5,000 a month sprucing it up?

    1. But it shows, he said, how underhanded internet campaigns try to launder seemingly legitimate material like Mr. Vermulst’s article through a mesh of websites and fake social media accounts to give it an air of impartiality and authenticity.

      What are they even arguing? It sounds even like they are saying that Mr. Vermulst's "legitimate" article is being used to give a company an 'air of impartiality and authenticity,' and... this is somehow wrong?

      If the article is illegitimate, what is the wrong..? It's entirely separate from the fact that there apparently exists a network of bots that intends to share it.

  6. Jan 2021
    1. The same groups – including members of the popular “alt-right” Reddit forum The_Donald – used techniques that are used by reputation management firms and marketers to push their companies up Google’s search results, to ensure pro-Trump imagery and articles ranked highly.

      Obvious lie easily prevented through research -- the Donald is not Alt Right.

    1. Supporters of former President Donald Trump breached the Capitol building on January 6 and attempted to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden's electoral win, believing that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

      This cannot be representative of all of the supporters who charged in at all. Not good journalism.

    1. Journalists should also be wary of publishing raw audio leaked from Zoom meetings, particularly if the source is not sure whether audio watermarking was enabled or not.
    1. Being first may have benefits in the race for traffic and clicks. But I'm not so sure it really adds value to society. As we've seen over and over again, the quick take -- or the "hot take" -- often gets key things wrong.
    1. But brand safety requires us to do two things: 1.) keep our ads away from hate speech and 2.) fund our news ecosystem. When you know your vendors are failing at both, can you afford to look away?
  7. Dec 2020
    1. By then, according to his recent confessions, Little had already killed more than a dozen women.

      The visual story played out below (in a desktop browser) with the piling up of the newspaper articles/headlines is very clever and powerful at the same time. I really like this storytelling device.

  8. Nov 2020
    1. Dr. Tufekci’s new cause is ventilation; her vehicle is The Atlantic, which gave her a contract after she had contributed to The Times as a freelancer for many years. Ironically, just as the Times opinion department was tearing itself apart over the charge that amplifying a senator’s views could endanger protesters, the one writer who had certainly saved lives slipped out a side door.

      Good on Ben for writing about the writer that the New York Times let get away... her writing is incredibly important and we need both more of it and more like her.

    2. Politicians and the news media often expect looting and crime when disaster strikes, as they did when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005. But the reality on the ground has more to do with communal acts of generosity and kindness, she believes.

      The media get many of these sorts of frequently happening broad stories wrong so often that "On the Media" has an entire series about them: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/projects/breaking-news-consumers-handbook

    1. And because we know many different types of audiences—including those we don’t know about!—will be interested in our work, we encourage you to freely republish our work under the terms of our Creative Commons license. 

      Cool to see a journalistic enterprise publishing under a Creative Commons license.

      Also sort of fun to see a tiny bit of a Kicks Condor design ethic baked into their website. Naturally it's a tad bit more buttoned up, but that's to be expected I suppose.

    1. Becca Monteleone, a professor of disability studies at the University of Toledo. Monteleone says, historically, when people have written about individuals with intellectual and development disabilities, they’ve been “writing about rather than for or with.”

      And isn't this how we should be writing about most?

    1. Our advice to the press: Don’t seek professional safety through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views. Which politician is telling the truth? Who is taking hostages, at what risks and to what ends?
    1. A few years ago, there was a boom of articles called “If it happened there,” imagining how the American press would cover this-or-that story if it happened in another country. How would we cover the government shutdown if it happened in another country? The Ferguson protests? The Oregon militia siege? George Floyd’s murder? Mike Bloomberg? Slate’s Joshua Keating popularized the form, but other outlets, including Vox, deployed it. The intent was to use the tropes of foreign coverage to create a sense of what the literary critic Darko Suvin called “cognitive estrangement” — severing us from the familiarity and overconfidence that can dull our awareness of extraordinary events.

      this is an interesting thought experiment

  9. Oct 2020
    1. They should see comments as part of that process. It’s not the product that matters, it’s the participation.

      Of course, reading this a decade+ along after the boom of social media, we'll now realize that it's even more than the participation. Part of it should also be where that participation occurs.

    2. This week, host Bob Garfield did a piece ostensibly about the problems newspaper sites have with website comments. Unfortunately it just came out sounding like another old journalist kvetching about how everyone on the net is an idiot. You can listen to the story here.

      Here's the new link to the audio: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/131068-july-25-2008

      Here's the link to a version of the site in August 2008 with the commentary, which makes a fascinating rabbit hole to go down: https://web.archive.org/web/20080907233914/http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2008/07/25/segments/104537

    1. Golwg360 will feature a rolling news service and will give businesses, public bodies and individuals the chance to set up their own micro-sites.

      This sounds a bit like the model that Greg McVerry and I have proposed for IndieWeb crossing with public libraries, and newspapers/journalism.

    1. However, a healthy news ecosystem doesn’t just require a thriving free press, it also needs a diversity of curators, newsletters and content discovery options that enable the weird and wonderful to surface. We want to use Nuzzel as a test kitchen to see what models works for curators as well as content creators. The simple goal is a sustainable open web where the goals of creators, curators and consumers are aligned around the best possible experience.

      This sounds exciting to me and could dovetail with efforts of many with respect to IndieWeb for Journalism.

    1. Republishing guidelines

      There was some conversation earlier today in the IndieWeb chat about comment policies, but this page presents an interesting case of repost policies.

      Is anyone doing this on their personal websites?

    1. 2019 is the year when publishers — whether big ones like Axios or the Los Angeles Times or tiny ones like mine or Judd Legum’s Popular Information — move away from letting someone else call all the shots. Or, at least, they should.

      There's already some work and movement in the IndieWeb with respect to journalism.

    1. I just wrote a long, considered, friendly, and I hope helpful comment here but -- sorry, I have to see the irony in this once again -- your system wouldn't let me say anything longer tahn 1,500 characters. If you want more intelligent conversations, you might want to expand past soundbite.

      In 2008, even before Twitter had become a thing at 180 characters, here's a great reason that people should be posting their commentary on their own blogs.

      This example from 2008 is particularly rich as you'll find examples on this page of Derek Powazek and Jeff Jarvis posting comments with links to much richer content and commentary on their own websites.

      We're a decade+ on and we still haven't managed to improve on this problem. In fact, we may have actually made it worse.

      I'd love to see On the Media revisit this idea. (Of course their site doesn't have comments at all anymore either.)

    1. But note well, my friend, that all of these people are speaking to you with intelligence, experience, generosity, and civility. You know what’s missing? Two things: First, the sort of nasty comments your own piece decries. And second: You.

      Important!

    2. Why can't there be more sites with solid commentary like this anymore? Do the existence of Twitter and Facebook mean whe can't have nice things anymore?

    1. The first is when you build businesses on platforms your don’t own; and then they change the rules on you.

      Here's a great example why Newspapers should embrace an IndieWeb perspective.

    2. The smartest outlets are starting to see themselves as a community of communities - which is the only way to effectively scale a community.

      This again makes me wonder if it wouldn't be a smarter idea to have social media built and maintained by news/journalistic organizations, part of whose goal is community.

    1. It just makes sense that news outlets and libraries collaborate. That’s something we at the News Co/Lab have believed from the beginning, and it’s something we’ve seen work very well in our partnerships

      Perhaps this is a good incubator for the idea Greg McVerry and I have been contemplating in which these institutions help to provide some of the help and infrastructure for the future of IndieWeb.

    1. “Using Twitter to bypass traditional media and directly reach voters is definitely a good thing,” Newt Gingrich said, in 2009.

      Is this because it makes it easier for misdirection and outright lies to reach an audience without being checked and verified? Very likely.

    1. Regular readers of Gillmor's eJournal will recognize his commitment to user participation. "One of the things I'm sure about in journalism right now is that my readers know more than I do," he says. "To the extent that I can take advantage of that in a way that does something for everyone involved ó that strikes me as pretty cool." One fascinating aspect of Gillmor's Weblog is how he lifts the veil from the workings of the journalism profession. "There have been occasions where I put up a note saying, 'I'm working on the following and here's what I think I know,' and the invitation is for the reader to either tell me I'm on the right track, I'm wrong, or at the very least help me find the missing pieces," he says. "That's a pretty interesting thing. Many thousands more people read my column in the newspaper than online, but I do hear back from a fair number of people from the Weblog."

      Awesomely, this sounds almost exactly like something that David Fahrenthold would tell Jay Rosen about Twitter nearly 16 years later in an interview in The Correspondent.

      https://boffosocko.com/2017/11/27/pull-up-a-chair-1-jay-rosen-david-fahrenthold-the-correspondent/

    2. He suggests that struggling sites like Salon begin broadening their content offerings by hosting user-created Weblogs, creating a sort of farm system for essayists. "Salon could highlight the best ones on page one and invest time and effort in the ones that are inspiring and exceptional."

      This is a rough sketch of something I've been thinking that newspapers and media outlets should have been doing all along. If they "owned" social media, we might all be in a better place socially and journalistic-ally than if advertising driven social media owned it all.

    3. media organizations would do well to incorporate them into their Web sites as an important new addition to the journalistic toolkit.
    1. I take your point, but I wonder if Trump is just kryptonite for a liberal democratic system built on a free press.

      The key words being "free press" with free meaning that we're free to exert intelligent editorial control.

      Editors in the early 1900's used this sort of editorial control not to give fuel to racists and Nazis and reduce their influence.Cross reference: Face the Racist Nation from On the Media.

      Apparently we need to exert the same editorial control with respect to Trump, who not incidentally is giving significant fuel to the racist fire as well.

    1. you can then use “Sign In with Google” to access the publisher’s products, but Google does the billing, keeps your payment method secure, and makes it easy for you to manage your subscriptions all in one place.  

      I immediately wonder who owns my related subscription data? Is the publisher only seeing me as a lumped Google proxy or do they get may name, email address, credit card information, and other details?

      How will publishers be able (or not) to contact me? What effect will this have on potential customer retention?

    1. Online media, despite being so different from traditional printed media, is still trying to maximize its potential audience, and in order to do that, going for quantity over quality.
    1. Tufekci argued that, in the 21st century, a surfeit of information, rather than its absence, poses the biggest problem. “When I was growing up in Turkey, the way censorship occurred was there was one TV channel and they wouldn’t show you stuff. That was it,” she said. “Currently, in my conceptualization, the way censorship occurs is by information glut. It’s not that the relevant information isn’t out there. But it is buried in so much information of suspect credibility that it doesn’t mean anything.”
    1. “If we can differentiate those platform experiences in the right way, we can start to craft content experiences that are maybe built for the same person, but they’re in a different mindset depending on the platform they’re on,” the company’s president told Digiday.

      This is a great "if" statement here, but it's completely missing the question of how doing these things benefits the bottom line of the publication.

    2. Even publishers with the most social media-savvy newsrooms can feel at a disadvantage when Facebook rolls out a new product.

      The same goes in triplicate when they pull the plug without notice too!

    3. A common complaint we heard from publishers at all levels is that it’s difficult to build partnerships with social media platforms. They seem to be holding all the cards. Even large publishers often feel in the dark during meetings with large platform companies.

      I'm more curious why all the large media companies/publishers don't pool their resources to build a competing social platform that they own and control so the end value comes to them instead of VC-backed social silos?

    4. Publishers of all sizes are trying to figure out how to leverage these new platforms as user behavior on each platform evolves. On top of all this, the platforms themselves are rapidly changing. It can often feel like no one is on steady ground.
    5. Legacy publishers need to leverage distributed content to grow their audience and survive this wave.

      Growing audience is certainly laudable, but this is an odd blanket statement which is going to need some significant supporting evidence for the how, why, and how will these legacy publishers benefit?

    6. Cheddar

      On April 30, 2019, Cheddar announced an agreement to be bought by the cable company Altice USA for $200 million in cash. Altice purchase Cheddar to bolster its news. When the deal closes, Jon Steinberg would become Altice News president overseeing Cheddar plus Altice USA's News 12 Networks and i24 News. --via Wikipedia) referencing The Hollywood Reporter

    7. It could mean working closely with a platform itself to beta test new products and features. Companies like CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post have signed on as Facebook media partners and have collectively produced hundreds of Facebook Live broadcasts, for instance. Other brands such as The Wall Street Journal, Cosmopolitan, ESPN and more have teamed up with Snapchat to produce content for Snapchat Discover, Snapchat’s media portal.

      It's been almost 2 1/2 years since this was published. I'm curious if the group has revisited this white paper to evaluate how these methods have worked over time.

      Prima fascia evidence would indicate that most major publications that have gone all-in on some of these experiments have only lost out on them following the pivots that social silos have made since. A good example is the large number of publishers that went in on Facebook video related products only to have Facebook completely abandon them. It's not a partnership if the publication has no recourse when the social platform abandons them.

      I seem to recall that several online pubflishers were essentially forced to completely shutter following social platforms pivoting unexpectedly.

    1. Some publishers are seeing a “Trump Bump” with subscriptions and donations rising post-election, and there is evidence of renewed efforts of both large and niche publishers to build audiences and revenue streams away from the intermediary platform businesses. However, it is too soon to tell if this represents a systemic change rather than a cyclical ripple.

      More likely a cyclical ripple, but one could hope...

    2. However, this is a distraction from the larger issue that the structure and the economics of social platforms incentivize the spread of low-quality content over high-quality material. Journalism with high civic value—journalism that investigates power, or reaches underserved and local communities—is discriminated against by a system that favors scale and shareability.
    3. Visit www.towcenter.org/pnp for the full report.
    1. But on the Web, stories of all kinds can show up anywhere and information and news are all mixed together. Light features rotate through prominent spots on the "page" with the same weight as breaking news, sports coverage, and investigative pieces, even on mainstream news sites. Advertorial "features" and opinion pieces are not always clearly identified in digitalspaces.

      This difference is one of the things I miss about reading a particular newspaper and experiencing the outlet's particular curation of their own stories.Perhaps I should spend more time looking at the "front page" of various news sites.

    2. “Solutions journalism’ is another promising trend that answers some of the respondents’ sense of helplessness in the face of the barrage of crisis coverage.62
    3. Some (36%) said they agreed that the threat of “‘fake news’ had made them distrust the credibility of any news.” Almost half (45%) lacked confidence with discerning “real news” from “fake news,” and only 14% said they were “very confident” that they could detect “fake news.”

      These numbers are insane!

    4. YouTube (54%), Instagram (51%) or Snapchat (55%)

      I'm curious to know which sources in particular they're using on these platforms. Snapchat was growing news sources a year ago, but I've heard those sources are declining. What is the general quality of these sources?

      For example, getting news from television can range from PBS News Hour and cable news networks (more traditional sources) to comedy shows like Stephen Colbert and The Daily Show with Trevor Noah which have some underlying news in the comedy, but are far from traditional sources.

    1. That’s why it’s so important to us that we help you drive sustainable revenue and businesses.

      Compared to Facebook which just uses your content to drive you out of business like it did for Funny or Die. Reference: http://splitsider.com/2018/02/how-facebook-is-killing-comedy/

    2. People come to Google looking for information they can trust, and that information often comes from the reporting of journalists and news organizations around the world.

      Heavy hit in light of the Facebook data scandal this week on top of accusations about fake news spreading.

    3. we’re committing $300 million toward meeting these goals.

      I'm curious what their internal projections are for ROI?

    4. we drove 10 billion clicks a month to publishers’ websites for free.

      Really free? Or was this served against ads in search?

    1. The Digipo toolkit

      Perhaps I'm missing it, but is this not an open browser extension already? I'd love to have these pieces built as a WordPress or separate plugin. I've seen some of the pieces earlier today that look like they've been unbundled, but I'd love to have the rest...

    2. advanced query that does that: bipartisanreport.com -site:bipartisanreport.com

      a useful web search that isn't often utilized

    3. the event in Miami on Inauguration Day (site:www.sourcewatch.com OR site:www.factcheck.org OR site:hoax-slayer.com OR site:www.truthorfiction.com OR site:opensecrets.org OR site:www.politifact.com OR site:snopes.com OR site:www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/ OR site:digipo.io)

      just this piece makes this a powerful little tool!

    1. Actavis Pharma was acquired by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries in 2016, and a spokeswoman there said the company “cannot speak to any systems in place beforehand.”

      They bought out the company! Of course they can speak to systems in place beforehand! They're just choosing not to. The reporting here should make this clearer. Otherwise it should indicate exactly why they can't.

    1. The Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internet is Jeff Kosseff’s definitive history and analysis of the current fight over Section 230, the fight over who will be held responsible to forbid speech. In it, Kosseff explains how debate over intermediary liability, as this issue is called, stretches back to a 1950s court fight, Smith v. California, about whether an L.A. bookseller should have been responsible for knowing the content of every volume on his shelves.

      For me this is the probably the key idea. Facebook doesn't need to be responsible for everything that their users post, but when they cross the line into actively algorithmically promoting and pushing that content into their users' feeds for active consumption, then they do have a responsibility for that content.

      By analogy image the trusted local bookstore mentioned. If there are millions of books there and the user has choice when they walk in to make their selection in some logical manner. But if the bookseller has the secret ability to consistently walk up to children and put porn into their hands or actively herding them into the adult sections to force that exposure on them (and they have the ability to do it without anyone else realizing it), then that is the problem. Society at large would further think that this is even more reprehensible if they realized that local governments or political parties had the ability to pay the bookseller to do this activity.

      In case the reader isn't following the analogy, this is exactly what some social platforms like Facebook are allowing our politicans to do. They're taking payment from politicans to actively lie, tell untruths, and create fear in a highly targeted manner without the rest of society to see or hear those messages. Some of these sorts of messages are of the type that if they were picked up on an open microphone and broadcast outside of the private group they were intended for would have been a career ending event.

      Without this, then we're actively stifling conversation in the public sphere and actively empowering the fringes. This sort of active targeted fringecasting is preventing social cohesion, consensus, and comprimise and instead pulling us apart.

      Perhaps the answer for Facebook is to allow them to take the political ad money for these niche ads and then not just cast to the small niche audience, but to force them to broadcast them to everyone on the platform instead? Then we could all see who our politicians really are?

    1. Anyone can open up Twitter and instantly know what the world is gabbing about from minute to minute, all day long, across thousands of electronic sources that are instantly available all over the globe.

      But we don't get the journalistic criticism of the coverage, who's doing it better, who's more thorough, etc. We're still missing that.

    1. Among the many phenomena we’d tentatively attribute, in large part, to the trend: the rise of sharebait (nee clickbait) and the general BuzzFeedification of traditional media; the Internet hoax-industrial complex, which only seems to be growing stronger; and the utter lack of intelligent online discourse around any remotely complicated, controversial topic.

      sharebait BuzzFeedification Internet hoax-industrial complex

      Priceless!

    1. We analyzed our Disqus data and we found that roughly 17,400 comments were made on our site in 2019, but 45% came from just 13 people. That data tells us that social media, email, phone calls, letters to the editor, our Crosscut events and an occasional visit to the newsroom are far better tools for us to hear about your concerns, story ideas, feedback and support.

      The Disqus data statistics here are fascinating. It also roughly means that those 13 people were responsible for 600+ comments on average or roughly 2 a day every day for the year. More likely it was a just a handful responsible for the largest portion and the others tailing off.

      Sadly missing are their data about social media, email, phone, and letters to the editor which would tell us more about how balanced their decision was. What were the totals for these and who were they? Were they as lopsided as the Disqus numbers?

    2. In the meantime, stay in touch with Crosscut by: Liking us on Facebook  Following us on Twitter  Following us on Instagram Chatting with us on Reddit Signing up for one (or all) of our newsletters 

      It seems like they've chose a solution for their community that boils down to pushing the problem(s) off onto large corporations that have shown no serious efforts at moderation either?

      Sweeping the problem under the rug doesn't seem like a good long term answer. Without aggregating their community's responses, are they really serving their readers? How is the community to know what it looks like? Where is it reflected?

      I wonder what a moderated IndieWeb solution for them might look like?

    1. Worse than the hackers are the competent journalists and site creators that are making legitimate content online, but get seduced by the SEO dark side into thinking they need to create content for Google instead of for their readers. It dumbs-down the content, which turns off your real audience, which ultimately makes you less valuable to advertisers. If you want to know why there’s so much remnant advertising on online news sites, it’s because you’re treating the stories like remnants already.
    1. We have to recognize that prior to Web 2.0 and social media, “the media” often connoted “mass media,” broadcast from the few to the many.

      One of the issues we're seeing is that mass media still exists within platforms like Facebook and Google, the problem is that the "gatekeepers" now have vastly different structure and motivation. The ostensible gatekeeper now is an algorithm that puts all it' emphasis on velocity, stickiness, shareability, and the power of anger (which pushes clicks, likes, and shares). Thus the edge content is distributed far and wide rather than the "richest" and most valuable content that a democracy relies on for survival. Mass media is still with us, we've just lost the value of the helmsperson controlling the direction of the rudder.

    1. Kinney’s team worked with Southern Vermont reporter Howard Weiss-Tisman on his social media presence and community engagement strategies to better reach his audience — and, in turn, increase donations.

      This does seem like a solid avenue to pursue and I've yet to see something like it myself in the wild. Having hosts make "asks" through social media directly could be highly invaluable as it adds an additional personal touch.

    1. The furore over Fake News is really about the seizures caused by overactivity in these synapses - confabulation and hallucination in the global brain of mutual media. With popularity always following a power law, runaway memetic outbreaks can become endemic, especially when the platform is doing what it can to accelerate them without any sense of their context or meaning.

      One might think that Facebook could easily analyze the things within their network that are getting above average reach and filter out or tamp down the network effects of the most damaging things which in the long run I suspect are going to damage their network overall.

    1.  recording it all in a Twitter thread that went viral and garnered the hashtag  #PlaneBae.

      I find it interesting that The Atlantic files this story with a URL that includes "/entertainment/" in it's path. Culture, certainly, but how are three seemingly random people's lives meant to be classified by such a journalistic source as "entertainment?"

    1. Chris Hayes, who anchors MSNBC’s 8 pm newscast and is among the most thoughtful, civic-minded journalists in the industry, referenced a Will Ferrell joke from Anchorman 2 on his podcast, saying, “What if instead of telling people the things they need to know, we tell them what they want to know?” That is, he says, “the creation story of cable news.”
    1. The lesson, again, and again: Unique voices supported by subscribers point a way forward.
    2. Check out the Times or the Post these days, though, and it is a different world. Stories of greatest import can sometimes stay atop phone screens for much of the day.

      And isn't this how it happened in print, which just didn't change because of the medium instead of editorial?

    1. Methodology To determine the link between heat and income in U.S. cities, NPR used NASA satellite imagery and U.S. Census American Community Survey data. An open-source computer program developed by NPR downloaded median household income data for census tracts in the 100 most populated American cities, as well as geographic boundaries for census tracts. NPR combined these data with TIGER/Line shapefiles of the cities.

      This is an excellent example of data journalism.

    1. The American Bible Society, t he American Sunday School Union, and the American Tract Society were all established in this period, and they each used the printing press to besiege the nation with Bibles, t racts, pictures, and picture cards t hat would help to create a strong, unified, J esus-centered national i dentity. A good tract “should be entertaining,” announced the American Tract Society in 1824. “ There must be something to allure the listless to read.”

      This is also the same sort of cultural movement to happen to journalism with Hard Copy in the early 1980's.

    2. As part of t he renewed effort t o promote uplift suasion, a group of f ree Blacks established the nation’s first Black newspaper, Freedom’s Journal, with its headquarters i n New York City.

      first Black newspaper

    1. A fun thing to watch for on news sites is when a draft of an article is submitted with an initial slug and title. Later, the title is changed but the slug is left untouched. This can result in some fun situations where the headline of an article has been made more subtle - but the slug retains some fairly blunt language.
    1. Alex Rushmer is a Cambridge-based chef, food writer and owner of the restaurant Vanderlyle. The original version of this article was published on his blog

      POSSE to newspaper!

      h/t Kevin Marks

    1. It wasn’t just that the headlines, free-floating, decontextualized motes of journalism ginned up to trigger reflexive mouse clicks, had displaced the stories. It was that the whole organizing structure of the newspaper, its epistemological architecture, had been junked. The news section (with its local, national, and international subsections), the sports section, the arts section, the living section, the opinion pages: they’d all been fed through a shredder, then thrown into a wind tunnel. What appeared on the screen was a jumble, high mixed with low, silly with smart, tragic with trivial. The cacophony of the RSS feed, it’s now clear, heralded a sea change in the distribution and consumption of information. The new order would be disorder.

      How can we design against this sort of disorder?

    2. Third, content collapse puts all types of information into direct competition. The various producers and providers of content, from journalists to influencers to politicians to propagandists, all need to tailor their content and its presentation to the algorithms that determine what people see. The algorithms don’t make formal or qualitative distinctions; they judge everything by the same criteria. And those criteria tend to promote oversimplification, emotionalism, tendentiousness, tribalism — the qualities that make a piece of information stand out, at least momentarily, from the screen’s blur.

      This is a terrifically painful and harmful thing. How can we redesign a system that doesn't function this way?

    1. One thing that using this tool has highlighted for me is that there are a lot of things happening in our community every day, between news, announcements, events and other stuff. If you only rely on what your social media service of choice has decided is worth knowing because it’s generating clicks or discussion, you’re likely to miss something important. Also, do you really want to get your news crammed in between cat videos and political rants from distant acquaintances?
    1. We need citizens to be equipped to navigate the world around us. Because good journalism is great for democracy but a citizenry equipped to meet the challenges of democracy is necessary for democracy.
    2. On the right — that’s what democracy looks like. At City Bureau we believe the future of journalism looks more like this. It’s made of networks, it’s collaborative, it practices radical transparency and it equips people to be makers.

      This chart is very reminiscent of a similar chart I saw just this morning that was looking at the differences between unicorns and zebras within an economic framing.

    1. In the last few months I actually came across Derek's side of the story and so I dug back into archives (literally archive.org) to find the original show and catch the blog post conversation around this controversy. I particularly recall Ira and Jeff Jarvis' conversations. Somehow I didn't see Kevin's portion of the conversation in the comments sections of the others, but I'm glad to have it pop up just a few weeks later to complete the circle.

      Of the group, Kevin, as usual, provides some of the best analysis, but he also adds in a huge amount of additional context by way of links.

      Society seems to have ripped itself open recently and I can't help but think that we're going to need some strong tummelers and heavy work to allow everyone to speak, be heard, and create some change. Kevin's piece here may be a good starting point.

      Perhaps this is the piece some of our mainstream media have been missing from a journalistic perspective? For too long they've acted as aggregators and filters, but perhaps they should be spending a larger portion of their time doing some tummeling work on our behalf?

    1. Update, 11:22 Eastern: Weiss has posted a letter of resignation addressed to Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger on her website. In it, she denounces the Times for fostering an atmosphere of stifling conformity and accuses her now-former colleagues of bullying:

      Having your own website is a must, particularly when you've just left one of the biggest platforms on the planet and still need to have a platform to reach your audience and the world.

    1. Today’s leading-edge content tools are integrated context, collaboration and insight machines. We’re moving from unidirectional publishing of articles to organizing all our work and closing the feedback loop with our customers. I call this “full-stack publishing”.

      This sounds a little bit like what the IndieWeb is building for itself!

  10. Sep 2020
    1. I’ve been thinking about that a lot, about how we can’t cover sports right now, or ever, as an individual and separate thing because sports are the gift we get for making our society as just and fair as possible. Right now, we’re seeing that multiplied a hundred times, because you have athletes who are feeling the urgency and have the power to come out and say what they believe politically. ESPN was saying just a few years ago that they wouldn’t cover politics at all. Now there’s no choice there. It’s been made really clear by the athletes, the people who play the sports, that they don’t want that distinction there themselves. So, who are we to decide that it must be imposed?

      Or cooking, members of the NYT Cooking Club cough or singing, members of Eric Whitacre's Virtual Choirs ...