Great piece and very informative and I agree to all of it, but it also raises some questions:
Joao P Carvalhinho
31

I love all the food metaphors 😉

Absolutely agreed: first of all, there is justified pressure on Facebook et al needing to find ways to combat fake news. It’s a priority mission and it’s great to see them make initial attempts at preventing fake news from spreading. Naturally, other issues arise there like Facebook suddenly becoming a media company… but I’ll have to leave that aside for another discussion.

The same applies to algorithms: Being in a bubble is a terrible danger, and the solution does depend on the social platforms making suitable adjustments in this arena.

As for long form journalism, I couldn’t possibly deny its place. It might actually be a very interesting development to see more spoken/video news analysis that’s deeper – it just doesn’t appear to be there just yet. As the social platforms evolve their algorithms and offer more incentives for publishers to push longer video rather than 30-second snippets, they might start producing more of it. However, this may still not be the absolute answer. Here’s the thing: Facebook have become masterful at providing data insights. You see attrition at 5 or 10 seconds, depending on the video. BUT part of the problem is that we have no adequate comparison. I would be very curious to know how many of the people who click on a news analysis article actually read it all the way to the end – on average. Nobody reveals this metrics, and Facebook does – perhaps to its own detriment. I have a hunch, though, that attrition rates will be similar, if not higher, for written pieces.

Maybe that’s also something that news organisations should start looking into and publishing? Seems like the world of media could only benefit from this learning 😉

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.