Dissidents “were executed.” Bodies “were later found.” The man was killed in an “officer-involved shooting.”
Starting in January of this year, we at the Chicago Tribune started to anecdotally see a fairly significant change in our post reach.
By now, it’s a common refrain: Facebook insists that it’s not a media company, even though it does exactly what most news organizations do: Show its users advertising that’s adjacent to content relevant to their interests.
The influence of social media platforms and technology companies is having a greater effect on American journalism than even the shift from print to digital
Facebook continues to be under fire for peddling fake news, but the platform will never take real responsibility.
He’s not in Manhattan anymore. This New York-iest of politicians, now an idiosyncratic, write-your-own-rules president, has stumbled into the most conventional of Washington traps: believing he can master an entrenched political press corps with far deeper connections to the permanent government of federal law enforcement and executive department officials than he has.
There is a sense that everyone with a Press badge is a target, someone who is obviously unfriendly to the candidate (to the -elect…) and yet there seems to be no comprehension that before there was a 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, there was a 1st Amendment.
The question: What don’t you know about what’s ahead in 2017?
What was truly significant in media this year? Was it a development in journalism, or corporate moves, technological advances, social media or something else? What insight might we place into a personal time capsule? Here we go:
My main journalistic lesson of 2016 is to brace for massive upheaval and redefinition. What we’ve just seen — the election, fake news, red feeds, blue feeds, mistrust, niche sites, the so-called end of the mainstream — have implications for all of us in the fourth estate.
We must face the fact that Facebook doesn’t care about news in the journalism sense. News represents about 10% of the average user newsfeed and news can be cut overnight if circumstances dictate with no significant impact for the platform.
What is truly horrifying is that fake news is not the manipulation of an unsuspecting public. Quite the opposite. It is willful belief by the public. In effect, the American people are accessories in their own disinformation campaign.
The Facebook ad juggernaut may next be poaching from local TV ad budgets as it builds out video audience. And Facebook remains a formidable competitor to magazines and any digital startup, profit or nonprofit, for whom digital ads are an important revenue source.
The New York Times deconstructs how Mr. Tucker’s now-deleted declaration on Twitter the night after the election turned into a fake-news phenomenon. It is an example of how, in an ever-connected world where speed often takes precedence over truth, an observation by a private citizen can quickly become a talking point for a world leader, even as it is being proved false
Something is deeply wrong when the pope’s voice, reputation and influence can be borrowed by a source that describes itself as “a fantasy news site” to claim that he has endorsed a presidential candidate, and then be amplified, unchallenged, through a million individual shares.
This has not been your typical presidential election — not for the voters, the candidates or the news media. James Poniewozik, chief television critic for The New York Times, and Jim Rutenberg, media columnist for The Times, discuss how the election season went, good and bad, for members of the press.
All the dazzling technology, the big data and the sophisticated modeling that American newsrooms bring to the fundamentally human endeavor of presidential politics could not save American journalism from yet again being behind the story, behind the rest of the country.