Social Media and Journalism - Downsides?
This is pretty far off-topic for this already "focus challenged" blog, but my post about law and fundamentals speculated a bit about the influence of social media in other professions. There's one that I'm really curious about, and that's journalism/news.
It's become pretty well accepted as conventional wisdom that journalists and news people of all stripes have to join the social media revolution. They have to do so in order to keep in touch with readers, respond instantly to feedback, and track down the sources that sometimes appear on social media (often a Facebook page may end up telling at least part of the story, right?). As a reader and consumer of news there's been a pretty fun byproduct of all this, and this is that I get to follow and often see the personal side of journalists and reporters who I'm interested in and read.
But I wonder if there's a downside to media folk spending a ton of time in social media? My own anecdotal observations - as a reader, I don't have any experience or expertise in journalism - is that it leads to a sort of tunnel vision. Over the past two or three years I've ended up filtering most of my news through the web, through blogs, and lately through Twitter, Facebook, etc. If it's not being mentioned on there, it's not viewed as important. Kevin O'Keefe sort of makes this point in a blog post ("How to get coverage in law blogs") giving advice to people who are looking to get coverage on law blogs:
Another thing I came across (and this may or may not be related) is a report [link] on the business press that talked about which companies get the most mentions. The one conclusion that was striking is that there's a weak connection between profit and media attention:
I'm just throwing my observations out there as a consumer. I guess at the end of the day one way of looking at it is that media is in the business of capturing the attention of the people, and they're going to write about what people respond to. Social media provides a great tool for the media to tap into readership and figure out what readers want. But there's something unsettling about this way of looking at it.
Possibly related: "About That White House Blogger Post From Yesterday (NYT Gets Punked)" - law blogger Eric Turkewitz pulled off an elaborate 4/1 prank that ensnared NYT blogs, among others. I'm not a big fan of April fool's and I think the internet has taken all the fun out of what little fun there must have been in it to begin with. I'm also not saying that this illustrates my point, but I thought it was worth throwing out there as food for thought.
Added: media coverage of the (oddly divisive) #iPad launch I think illustrates this issue (and flags other ones as well). Kathy E. Gill:
It's become pretty well accepted as conventional wisdom that journalists and news people of all stripes have to join the social media revolution. They have to do so in order to keep in touch with readers, respond instantly to feedback, and track down the sources that sometimes appear on social media (often a Facebook page may end up telling at least part of the story, right?). As a reader and consumer of news there's been a pretty fun byproduct of all this, and this is that I get to follow and often see the personal side of journalists and reporters who I'm interested in and read.
But I wonder if there's a downside to media folk spending a ton of time in social media? My own anecdotal observations - as a reader, I don't have any experience or expertise in journalism - is that it leads to a sort of tunnel vision. Over the past two or three years I've ended up filtering most of my news through the web, through blogs, and lately through Twitter, Facebook, etc. If it's not being mentioned on there, it's not viewed as important. Kevin O'Keefe sort of makes this point in a blog post ("How to get coverage in law blogs") giving advice to people who are looking to get coverage on law blogs:
I'm pretty much the same (and that sounds like good advice to me). If it's not being talked about online or by people I interact with online, it may as well not exist. It certainly has no chance of being relevant. This may or may not be fine for me at a personal level, but to the extent reporters and journos end up in this position, I can see how it may negatively affect their coverage. They may end up writing about and focusing on what they encounter online, in their social media circles, to the detriment of what's occurring off-line. (This may make sense for journalists focused on the internet or tech space, but how about for other journalists. Actually, come to think about it, even if it makes sense for journalists in the tech space, their reporting may leave out people who are off-line, and I'm not sure whether this makes sense.)If I have the time, I'll explain that I really don't know anything about them or their company so I have no idea if what they do is of interest to my readers. I'll further explain that for me to learn about them and their company they'll need to mention me or talk about items of interest to me in their own blog, if they have one, or other social media.
It's not that I have a big ego. It's just that until they mention me or subjects of interest to me, I can't see them. They'll not pop up in the items I follow in my RSS reader. Only then will I be able to see them, and possibly other people I follow talking about them. Until they do, they'll not get to the busy intersection of people discussing items of interest to me and my readers.
Another thing I came across (and this may or may not be related) is a report [link] on the business press that talked about which companies get the most mentions. The one conclusion that was striking is that there's a weak connection between profit and media attention:
(I have no idea about how the survey was conducted; it seemed pretty informal.) In the tech news space my impression (again, as a reader) is that there's just a rabid and unhealthy focus on certain companies and spaces. (The iPad is coming!!!) The social media space in particular seems to get an inordinate amount of play. I guess you could say that social media is the new frontier, and it may make sense to keep track of these companies and the issues raised by these companies, but the attention that's paid to them is just over the top. To me, it seems imbalanced. A tweak to Twitter's home page ends up reported in the New York Times! (on one of its blogs, but these days, many people treat the two as one). Regardless of where you think Twitter will end up as a company, this piece of news can only be of interest to a Twitter user. It's inconsequential to someone outside of that bubble. And you have to think that the only reason reporters end up talking about it is because they themselves are users. It's their bubble that's being tweaked. As someone who is interested in the stuff (a user of social media who also has a professional interest) this makes sense, but for someone who isn't really participating in social media, this probably seems off-kilter.the companies that came in #4 and #5 in total business press mentions have yet to show a profit? Forget profits - some people think that Twitter (1336 clips) and Facebook (1314 clips) don't even have business models. Yet over the last six months they each received far more attention than Intel, Sony, Dell, or HP (the largest tech company in the world).
I'm just throwing my observations out there as a consumer. I guess at the end of the day one way of looking at it is that media is in the business of capturing the attention of the people, and they're going to write about what people respond to. Social media provides a great tool for the media to tap into readership and figure out what readers want. But there's something unsettling about this way of looking at it.
Possibly related: "About That White House Blogger Post From Yesterday (NYT Gets Punked)" - law blogger Eric Turkewitz pulled off an elaborate 4/1 prank that ensnared NYT blogs, among others. I'm not a big fan of April fool's and I think the internet has taken all the fun out of what little fun there must have been in it to begin with. I'm also not saying that this illustrates my point, but I thought it was worth throwing out there as food for thought.
Added: media coverage of the (oddly divisive) #iPad launch I think illustrates this issue (and flags other ones as well). Kathy E. Gill:
MSM in love with iPad: NYT (which has an app, and thus vested interest) is live blogging launch.
At least this post will show up on Kevin O'Keefe's radar because you triggered his vanity RSS alerts! Hey Kevin, how's it going?
Venkat, this brought to mind Sunstein's Republic 2.0 and the "echo chambers" he obsessed about. While I understand your concern, RSS has allowed me to cast a wider net than I could have ever cast before. That's not 100% responsive to your concerns, but I'd note that the technology is partially solving the problem it creates.
Eric.
Reply to this
With attention and effort it can probably be (at least partially) solved.
For me, the problem is just noticing it. It took me a while to realize the shift in focus, and even after realizing it the habits are tough to break!
Reply to this