Monday, July 09, 2018

Social Media policy is coming from USA

Emily Bell writes about bias on Twitter and Facebook, seems to think the robots will not be up to doing an editor job. See previous posts for my views on Guardian Unlimited Talk and how the Guardian journalists blew out the potential of social media a while ago. More soon on citizen journalism and an update on OhmyNews.

But meanwhile this week is a good chance to check for USA situation sets things up for UK. We have some discussions on Brexit and a visit from Trump. Opinions vary on whether a lack of civility is a natural consequence of the web or whether Trump / Brexit introduced a new approach. Emily Bell seems to start with the authorities / Republican Party as compared with the liberals in the public who may make a large share of the posts. My guess is that in UK the journalists mostly report the Westminster situation, discussion inside the Conservative Party. Not so much reporting on Corbyn and supporters in social media. I still read the print Guardian most days so may have this wrong, maybe you find something else somewhere.

So some of the words / terms

toxic discourse (for instance at Twitter) 
platform enabling a far right presidency to consistently attack established democratic principles such as those of a free press 
human curators suppressed ratings for far-right news sources  
furore in the right-adjacent ranks 
violate hate-speech standards. It should be classified as fake news

Bell reports on some meetings that people from tech companies have had. Probability is that UK policy will follow.

On Dateline London this Saturday David Aaronovitch suggested that the UK right had normalised much new in recent years. This came up in conversation with Alex Deane and followed discussion about Brexit. I notice that UK tweets are often picking up on themes from the USA, not just retweets. Since the newspaper loss of influence became more obvious with the 2017 election there has been more activity with accounts such as Breitbart London, Westmonster and Leave.EU .  Possibly moreso this week.

Monday, April 23, 2018

Guardian borderline getting more obvious

Guardian seems to have gone completely anti social media

What, I could only wonder, were some people reading? In retrospect, I think we all know: the kind of borderline hysterical, often specious, entirely unconstructive stuff that the naivety of northern Californian billionaires has allowed to run riot.

This is John Harris about UKIP ideas continuing in UK. Thing is, social media could be promoting liberal / progressive ideas. But probably not with much cinvolvement from Guardian columnists.

Except Owen Jones. Just my impression. He seems to have more YouTube following than most Guardian projects.  Members 19,000 Owen Jones 107,000 subscribers. So there is potential in this.

So what to think? Is there a complete retreat now away from social media into a print base? Could explain why Corbyn is a border item.

Continues on Twitter.


Saturday, April 21, 2018

MSM now knocking social media, trend could continue as print circulation falls.

This post more like notes, much to come back to.

What I notice is that the newspapers and now broadcast are putting more energy into disputing what turns up on social media. Could be a trend as the newspapers lose actual inluence while broadcast continues to allow them to set the news agenda.

( examples from Assad and bombing , could be other aspects of spins around Corbyn, seems to be the centre of this, see post by Owen Jones )

Jonathan Freedland writes about true and false as in facts that support the case for bombing Syria. So here it is in print that Roger Waters has made remarks about the sources of recent claims. So I guess his Twitter account is genuine. Check your own take on what is said.

Meanwhile Times has had front page on "Assad apologists" in UK universities,  see tweet . BBC World Service has BBC Trending with a similar story. They seem to share Freedland's concern that social media competes with proper journalism. Guardian in print "mysterious pro-Assad tweeter has almost as many followers as BBC Middle East Editor". You can listen here, thing is I think how total it is. Complete attack job.

I do wonder if the BBC is supposed to have different standards as the World Service. They are paid by the FCO to influence Iran. Maybe this has something to do with it.

Meanwhile continuing story with Boris on Marr show. Twice now not really asked the question obvious to anyone who can find DW on YouTube. This is not really helping the official UK case.

Staying with Freedland eventually you get the claim that Emily Thornberry has "echoed" a Russian claim. Previously I noticed that her TV appearance last w/e was not reported in Guardian so I include it here as a bit of balance. My guess is that she has significant support, somehow not reflected in a media world getting smaller. More on this when there are some clues.





Thursday, April 05, 2018

limited Corbyn reporting in context of Boris "loose language"

Quick post as need space longer than a tweet. Links to other tweets re BBC Today coverage this morning re Boris, Corbyn and Salisbury. My interest, paricularly since weekend, in how the BBC news works with newspapers. There seems to be a strong bias against Corbyn. I have found an interview with Diane Abbott from yesterday and based on rweets I seem to have missed an item on Today since I stopped listening.

But anyway, now got my Guardian in print. Pages 6 and 7. Analysis of Boris "loose language". If you read carefully there is a paragraph quoting Corbyn balanced by a Boris claim that Corbyn had "chosen to side with Russia's spin machine".

Is the official leader of the opposition supposed to comment on the competence of ministers?
What is a newspaper to report?

What I find is that Corbyn seems to do well at PMQ on the occasions when nothing is reported in newspapers. Check on YouTube. Cannot say I do this every time. Just my take.

So possibly Corbyn has a point at this time.

How strong is the editor guideline not to report Corbyn unless it appears negative? Could explain how Brexit happened. Continues in another blog but not today, something else to do. Some Labour views were reported during referendum as lite versions of Cameron, but who did they convince?

Monday, March 19, 2018

Free Speech Online Guardian / OhmyNews timetravel

The Guardian is strongly into opinion and reporting on Facebook and other social media.

My problem is that they rarely show their own legitimate interest in revenue from advertising or explain what they plan as online.

There are issues with the tech giants but somehow social media continues, with much less hatred and vitriol than you might guess from just reading the newspapers.

Recently TV seems to have joined in. BBC concerned art scale of budgets based in USA. Last night BBC Trending very concerned about hate music on YouTube. They have a point but I feel like going back to discussions around the time citizen journalism first appeared.

Future posts for when that was. Meanwhile yet again Guardian Unlimited Talk, why trashed without warning? why never in any history? talk about airbrush the photo? continues previously but still worth a mention.

I will be going back to what I can find.

Meanwhile no YouTube RED in UK. Production in USA much easier. Ads still very annoying. Subs a better option. see previous posts. UK has better chance in future as part of global media. Jane Austin movies have mostly been done.

Not sure what happened to OhmyNews. English version closed. Japan version closed though it had resources. Continues on YouTube but not in English. Clues please. Blog as podcast? sound welcome as I am thinking about radio.

Monday, March 12, 2018

Background on future story , UK press confidence levels from public

Lots of stuff treading water at the moment. My guess is this is a stable situation for a while. Too may pressures for much to change quickly. The newspaper journalists ar too concerned with press liberty to accept government regulation. So even if the right newspapers are dodgy the Guardian etc will not mix it. ( Also some TV seems to worry about web so more aligned with newspapers than previously)

Meanwhile print circulation still declines, less funding for reporting, my guess there will be a claimed story without much basis. Regulation may come from a Conservative Gov. or maybe not so much. Most comment will come from social media.

Recently Channel 4 worked closely with Daily Mail to reveal Fascist past of Mosley family. Seems timed to block any adverse comment on stopping #Levesen2. Today Roy Greenslade in Guardian so much anti Mosley that he has almost no space for recent Byline stories on Sunday Times. there is a bit of explanation though on how Leveson came about. Something to come back to.

====================

Byline story on Sunday Times and Labour during Blair gov. this could be an issue if something else came up. Mandelson and others wanted to stay close to Cameron in referendum. Opposed Corbyn leadership till recent general election. Stay close to newspapers if possible. Is there some situation in which they would back Corbyn and mix it?

Friday, March 02, 2018

Guardian on Leveson continued

Now found a bit from the factual reporting, follows opinion in previous post

Hancock said that “the world has changed” since Leveson 1 and that the press is under threat from new digital forces that require “urgent” attention. Traditional publishers are struggling to make up the loss of revenue from the decline in popularity of printed press with digital income. In 2015, for every £100 newspapers lost in print revenue, newspapers only gained £3 in digital revenue. More than 200 local newspapers have closed since 2005. Google and Facebook control more than 60% of the UK digital ad market, with as much as 90% of all new online ad spend going to the two giants. Hancock said the “largely unregulated” social media world threatened high quality journalism with issues including clickbait, fake news, malicious disinformation and online abuse. “These are today’s challenges and this is where we need to focus,” he said.

Sorry, this "high quality journalism" in print and "malicious disinformation" online is just a bit lacking in nuance.

No wonder the Guardian never welcomed contributions from readers as in Guardian Unlimited Talk, now no longer mentioned. See previous posts.

Guardian sticks with other newspapers on #Leveson2

Newspapers today face an existential threat due to a combination of social, technical and economic factors. Their circulation has fallen by a third since the Leveson inquiry. In the last decade hundreds of newspapers have closed. Digital disordering of news has sucked revenues out of print. While more people than ever have access to newspaper content, it is the platforms like Facebook that have hoovered up the profits. Tech giants stood by as the information economy became contaminated by fake news and malicious foreign actors. Proceeding with Leveson 2 would raise the threat of press regulation while there is no sign of a regulatory framework for Silicon Valley firms that would make the polluter pay.


Copied from website

seems to mean, newspapers are wonderful, lots of problems, leave us alone.

is it possible that fake news comes from newspapers?

what happened in the referendum?

Main energy comes from Mail, Telegraph, Sun/Times. Links Conservatives /Brexit. Could this be an accident waiting to happen?

Reporting most likely now from outside UK.

No sign of any credible web strategy from any newspaper. Looks like continued declining print sales, older audience, less advertising, less resource for reporting. So mostly recycled opinion for whoever still accepts this sort of thing.

Former Guardian readers may be spread out a bit online.