When I began this blog, most articles attracted comment or three. But what I always got, and what I still get, are social media discussions (sometimes on G+, mostly twitter).
Before Social Media was a thing, I hung out on Usenet. Any user could start a thread by posting a link to an article (or more often, the entire article). Comments followed: some good, some bad, some outright trolls.
When Boards.ie first came along, it looked like usenet on a website, without the benefits of a usenet client. Clients gave you the ability to mute threads and articles, or block posters. “Do not feed the troll” is a motto born on usenet, where the most efficient way to stop the attention-seekers was to block and ignore.
There’s no rule that news article comments have to be on the same page (or site) as the story itself. And there’s nothing to stop any newspaper setting up a comments only website. Think of it. You log on, see a list of headlines and lead paragraphs, and you can either click to read the article on the main news website, or add your tuppenceworth. Newspaper readers get their news, commenters get their forum.
Postscript: Going back to the usenet client analogy: If a newsaper provides me with an app to use on my phone/table, then why can’t the app give me the ability to filter commenters I want to block/watch?
I attended an event today to mark World Press Freedom day, as a result of which I’m posing the audio below.
The first speech is by Kevin Bakhurst, RTÉ Deputy Director-General and Managing Director of News & Current Affairs, on the particular challenges facing broadcasting. It is followed by a speech by John Horgan, Press Ombudsman, which makes some important points about press freedom not simply as freedom from state censorship, but also about freedom from market forces.
The final audio clip is a question I asked of both participants about how media is defined, and when a blogger – or a group of bloggers – become “media”.
“Press freedom is typically understood to mean with freedom from state control. So far, so good. But perhaps it is also time to discuss the elephant in the room. This is the inescapable fact that, where the press is concerned, the power – the unacknowledged power – of the market is, if anything, greater than the power of the state, and that it is a power which needs to be seriously considered in any discussion of the freedom and the responsibility of the press.” – John Horgan
Everyday, in every newspaper, editors go through correspondence from readers and pick the best for publication.
Done well, a letters page gives a feel for public opinion, for which stories are striking a chord, and which arguments are winning.
Put another way, user generated content is nothing new.
Yet online, its has become almost an iron law to Never Read The Comments. The bottom half of the internet, in public discourse, is where all the mean bullies and trolls live. And nowhere is this opinion more popular than among old-school journalists.
So why don’t journalists apply the same logic to the internet that they do to their own pages?
No editor would ever print every single letter received. Before anyone heard of trolls, journalists were taught to avoid the Green Ink contributors.
Editors pick the best letters for publication. Why not the same for comments? Why are we content to moderate letters, so that they only need pass a minimum standard (not defamatory, no obscenity, whatever).
Why not treat comments as we treat letters to the editor, selecting only the best.
And sure, it restricts the conversation. But if you don’t make the cut, go set up your own website.
In the interests of full disclosure, 200 Words is pleased to provide this guide to journalistic terms of art, to better assist readers in navigating media reports relying on information of uncertain origin.
Sources: Pretty much anyone I talk to.
Informed sources: Anyone who listened to that Morning Ireland interview I missed.
Reliable sources: She probably won’t get me sued.
Senior sources: Anyone older than me.
Industry sources: The PR guy from IBEC. Or ISME.
Multiple sources: The rumour five different people in the press pack told me.
A strategist: The guy who knocked on my door during the last election canvass
An experienced strategist: He’s also a tallyman.
An observer: The hack at the next desk.
An informed observer: The Jobbridge intern.
Public reaction: I got an earful from the taxi driver last night.
Sources close to the commissioner: Paul Reynolds.
An official spokesperson: Anyone from the press office. Guaranteed blandness. As an example, my favourite recent non-quote is: “We are engaged in a process which will take some time to review the options and that’s ongoing.” A quote for the ages there, you could plug it at the end of any story and it would be equally relevant.
News papers are in trouble, and it isn’t hard to see why. The figures published today by Independent News and Media (INM) tell their own story.
The group puts a brave face on it, citing a 12% rise in online advertising revenue to €9.3m, and pointing to debt restructuring, but there’s a deeper problem.
Sales are falling, as they have done since a 2008 peak (see graph below), and while some newspaper folk cling to the hope that this is a recession effect, and will pass once Ireland turns enough corners, international experience suggests newspaper readership is, quite literally, dying off.
Readers are moving online, and online revenues, even with 12% growth, cannot compensate for declining circulation and print advertising streams.
Here’s the brutal statistic: print advertising fell by €9.5m in one year, more than total digitial revenue of €.9.3m.
This isn’t just a problem for INM. Ad sales and circulation figures look even worse for other daily titles.
There’s only one exception. The Irish Farmers Journal is not only seeing increased copy sales, they’ve even managed to convince readers to pay for their online product.
I was contacted by a student a few days ago, asking for my reaction to the statement that the media was overwhelmingly dominated by a narrow middle class perspective. This was my initial reply, which also riffed on the PantiBliss debate.
I know some journalists who are predictably middle class. I know others who are right wing lunatics. And an equal number who are left wing lunatics. Mostly they’re people who want to tell stories. Any stories. Censorship/free speech isn’t always something they’ve thought about, but it is something they feel about instinctively.
Libel laws are something we think about, all the time. Having been on the receiving end of threats a few times (never successful, happily) I can assure you the chilling effect is literal. A shiver ran down my spine.
And there we get to the nub. Journalists aren’t really white middle-class men, even the white middle class men. But juries are. And to an extent, so are audiences increasingly, as kids defect to their second screens. And upper management cares about audience, so they won’t want to upset their audience. And they care about costs, so they won’t want to attract litigation.
Behind Vincent Browne or George Hook is a team of three to five people, probably still in their twenties, and the majority are probably women. For a show like Sean O’Rourke, the number is probably closer to thirty to forty people. And they want to push the envelope, they want to get the story, but they also know what the suits want, and they know there’s no point in telling a story to an empty room, so they have to take their audience with them too. And so conversely you often end up with an audience that’s usually far ahead of media (listen to the applause from a safe RTE light ents crowd when Rory O’Neill named Ionanists) because the suits put a brake on the caravan so that it only travels as fast as its slowest member.
And then, I thought about Garth Brooks. Anyone paying attention to ticket sales over the last couple of weeks will be in no doubt but that Garth Brooks is enormously popular in Ireland, yet almost without exception, every article, radio piece and media tweet I’ve seen on the topic has not only been amazed by this revelation, but dismissive of it. The Garth Brooks fan is reported like a strange foreign phenomenon, much as we’d report one of those stories about a new species of frog discovered in the Amazon basin.
And we wonder why people are switching off and seeking (and making) their own news online.
It’s been a busy ten days since Rory O’Neill appeared on the Saturday Show.
John Waters took offence, as did several members of the Iona Institute, and the online community (of not the dead tree press) has followed each twist and turn in the story.
There’s even been some light entertainment, with the @ionawatch twitter account immediately followed by the @ionawatwatch account.
And yesterday, Una Mullally wrote about the “need for an independent homophobia watchdog to monitor the inevitable destructive rhetoric that will colour one side of the debate, without fear of legal repercussions.”
Iona’s various claims have been examined in depth before, of course. Here for example is a an article from FactsAreSacred, a website I help maintain.
So there’s no shortage of criticism and examination of the rhetoric.
So what kind of watchdog is Una Mullally calling for? Exemption from defamation laws for some criticism, because the law is used to chill dissenting opinions?
That’s a dangerous precedent, if only because it in turn might be abused.
Iona has a bully pulpit, provided to it in large part by mainstream media outlets like the Irish Times.
If FactsAreSacred can factcheck Iona “research” critically, so can the Irish Times.