Publishing used to be relatively simple. You published a newspaper once a day or produced a nightly newscast. Even with the advent of the Internet things were fairly straightforward: You had a website and posted your coverage there. But as platforms — from Facebook and Snapchat to messaging platforms such as Kik and Line — become more ubiquitous, news organizations now have to decide where they want to publish and how they want to present their coverage on these platforms.
A study out this week from the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University examines how platforms have changed journalism, and while the entire 25,455-word report is worth reading, one particularly interesting section looks at how news outlets are choosing to publish (or not publish) across a variety of platforms.
The report compares how The New York Times, CNN, and The Huffington Post utilized platforms during a week in early February. In that span, each outlet posted to about 10 different platforms. The Times and HuffPo each posted about 1,660 times across the various platforms. CNN, however, published more than 2,800 stories, about 40 percent more than the other two.
The Tow report defines two primary different types of platform-based content: native and networked. Native content includes entities such as Snapchat Discover and Stories, Facebook Instant Articles, or Apple News. These formats live entirely within the walled gardens of the platforms. Networked content, meanwhile, links back to the news organizations’ own sites.
The study examined 14 publishers and found that during the week of Feb. 6, they posted 12,341 pieces of networked content and 11,481 pieces of native content.
“While publishers all need to have a presence across a broad range of platforms, how they distribute their content — and, in particular, the amount they ‘give away’ to platforms in the form of native content — differs considerably,” the study said.
During the week of February 6, two-thirds of The Huffington Post’s distributed content was posted in native formats. That includes 695 stories on Apple News and 305 Facebook posts, which include Instant Articles, Live Video, and other formats. “These native Facebook posts also represent 98 percent of Huffington Post’s total Facebook posts,” the study found.
CNN similarly posted 59 percent of its content natively. That included 1,016 Apple News Articles, 948 tweets, and 278 YouTube videos. The report also noted that “CNN’s concerted effort to reach younger audiences is also evident in its Snapchat Discover channel, on which we saw a shift away from scrollable articles repurposed from cnn.com to more bitesize news cards, and its ongoing commitment to chat app LINE.”
Meanwhile, only 16 percent of the Times’ posts were native. The Times was one of a handful of news organizations that Facebook launched Instant Articles with in 2015, but the paper has since stopped publishing on Instant Articles. During the week that Tow measured the posts, just 19 percent of the Times’ 406 Facebook posts were native to the platform. The paper also posted 74 stories on Apple News.
Unlike The Huffington Post and CNN, the Times is focused on digital subscriptions and its main goal is to drive users back to its own platforms, which explains its reluctance to use native posts.
In a speech at a conference last year, Lydia Polgreen, who was then the editorial director of the Times’ global expansion effort and is now the editor of The Huffington Post, explained how the Times’ approach to platforms is different than other publishers.
Social platforms, especially Facebook, allow us to target our journalism to those most likely to want to pay for it. I believe that we are better off as Facebook’s happy customer than as its outgunned competitor in a David and Goliath fight for advertising dollars.
Yes, Facebook will try mightily to keep news consumers inside its platforms, via features like Instant Articles. Our job is to create experiences that will draw our most loyal users back, again and again, to our own products. So far, we seem to be succeeding at this. We will never be as big or financially successful as Facebook, but I believe we can run a thriving media company that can afford a lavishly funded news operation, as well as return value to our shareholders.
Many of the people the study’s authors — Emily Bell and Taylor Owen — interviewed reiterated that business models often determine how news organizations approach publishing on the platforms:
Jim Brady, founder and CEO of Billy Penn, a Philadelphia mobile news platform, said that when it came to Instant Articles, “I can afford to be a little bit more agnostic about it than someone whose revenue is tied to where the page view lies.” Gabe Dance, former managing editor of the not-for-profit news organization the Marshall Project said their resources were focused on “impact” because that’s what funders care about. And, after an unsuccessful experiment with NPR to host audio natively on the platform, Wright Bryan, senior editor for engagement, walked away wondering, “Does audio really fit a format like Facebook?”
One example of this is that the study showed that publishers’ attitudes toward Instant Articles in particular varied greatly. Outlets such as The Washington Post, Vox, and BuzzFeed News all posted more than 90 percent of their links as Instant Articles during the week of February 6. Meanwhile, Vice, Vice News, and Tronc papers the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times aren’t using Instant Articles at all.
“I think because there’s a continuous debate as to the very question: ‘What do you need to control, and what things do you not,’” Sterling Proffer, head of business strategy and development at Vice, told the study’s authors. “Going all in, solely on the platform to support your entire ecosystem in every way, is a big gamble.”
One comment:
Instead, you’re being directed to an online web page that accommodates malware and spam that can permit scammers to steal your personal information, leading to id theft and monetary fraud. You may also delete cookies and clear internet chat permissions, which present you’ve been on our net chat webpage. On Tinder, for example, a match might have several exchanges with you and then give you further information on their private net web page and even pretend Facebook or Instagram profiles. In actuality, the scammer is fishing for personal information, or it could even be a fraudulent bot operation that performs on emotion and excitement (by the provide of unveiling photos) to achieve access to the victim’s data – which can then be used for financial fraud. I’m a one that naturally has a bitchy resting face, and in loads of photos I can look extra intimidating than I intend to, so I’ve found it’s always useful to get trustworthy suggestions!
You create a profile, answer a variety of questions, and add a few photographs. By now we’re familiar with the chilly calculation that relationship (especially of the web selection) is a numbers game. Amena is now an moral hacker for GCHQ. If you really need to be taught extra about this matter, then I suggest you take a look at the web’s greatest resource on this, go to this site now! These usually entail somebody who chats with you for a while, then tries to convince you to click on on a link. Using a world dating service affords them a means to fulfill someone who shares the identical interest as them. An alternative huge advantage to an international dating service is the capacity to communicate with other real love. You can even construct your own online dating service in order to assist you find your excellent mate. These purposes are also excellent for those who have pursuits that period a wider area.
If the person you are communicating with doesn’t converse your native phrases, you need to use this function to ask questions, discover out about their pursuits and extra. One can find such opinions for relationship websites on ‘About’ and ‘Top Ten Reviews’. Of prime significance is to choose your prime three relationship apps and use them for one month at a time. While free international relationship websites attempt to maintain up the authenticity of profiles, it’s all the time advisable to proceed with warning. Some of these options are paid while some primary ones can be used on a free account. Once you click on by, you will be asked for private information like your title, address, cellphone number, electronic mail, Social Security number, beginning date, and even your checking account or credit card particulars. Long distance human relationships may be thrilling and even exquisite while you present them with the difficulty you need to. Or they might contact victims themselves, perhaps claiming common interests or a distant, mutual connection.
In any case, no-one needs to particular date somebody who fails to really have related pursuits like them. The second: “So you are a relationship supervisor who is not in a relationship… The frowning face most likely comes a detailed second. This is mainly the main difference between local and international dating – when it comes to the latter, it’s not about Tinder, Bumble, Match, and other apps which can be thriving in America. In truth, there are various good issues that one could [url=http://www.charmdatereviews.com/charmdate-review/]charmdate.com[/url] comes from having an internet partnership. Military romance scams are so widespread that the US Army has produced an in depth reality sheet on spotting romance scammers posing as American troopers posted abroad, which you’ll be able to read right here. And here I perceive that, as guys, we might not learn all of a woman’s bio that we find attractive. Jumpdates is the way in which the place you discover your soul mate and for such relations, we don’t need your money however yes we want your views and positive responses. While some users don’t love that you really need to pay to get any actual advantages from eHarmony, it’s a terrific way to weed out anyone who isn’t critical.
Trackbacks:
Leave a comment