Social journalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Social journalism is a media model consisting of a hybrid of professional journalism, contributor and reader content.[1] It is similar to open publishing platforms, like Twitter and WordPress.com, except that some or most content is also created and/or screened by professional journalists. Examples include Forbes.com, Medium, BuzzFeed,and Gawker. The model, which in some instances has generated monthly audiences in the tens of millions, has been discussed as one way for professional journalism to thrive despite a marked decline in the audience for traditional journalism.[2]

"Platishing"[edit]

Writing in Re/code, Jonathan Glick, CEO of Sulia, said the model of publishers as platforms (which he calls a "platisher") is "on the rise". Glick cites as examples Medium (from Twitter co-founders Evan Williams and Biz Stone), Vox Media, Sulia, Skift, First Look Media (backed by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar) and BuzzFeed.[3] On March 12, 2014, Mark Little, the CEO of Storyful.com, now a division of News Corp., proposed "10 Principles that Power Social Journalism," including "UGC [User Generated Content] is governed by the same legal and ethical code as any other content" and "The currency of social journalism is authenticity not authority. We are not experts in every subject."[4]

In an interview in The New York Times, the editor of The Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, said the Guardian was in the process of converting into a platform as well as a publisher. "For years, news organizations had a quasi monopoly on information simply because we had the means of distribution. I think if as a journalist you are not intensely curious about what has been created by people who are not journalists, then you’re missing out on a lot," he said.[5]

The new rules[edit]

On April 1, 2014, in a column in GigaOM entitled "Social journalism and open platforms are the new normal — now we have to make them work" Mathew Ingram asked "How can media entities take advantage of this phenomenon without losing their way in the process?" and proceeded to review suggested rules for social journalism proposed by former FastCompany.com president Ed Sussman, an early adopter of the model.[6] Ingram summarized Sussman's suggestions, including clear labeling types of contributors (e.g. staff, guest contributor, reader contribution); establishing guidelines, such as conflict of interest rules, that posters must consent to before posting; providing wiki-like tools for social improvements to content; elevating the best content with curators and algorithms; deleting weak or problematic content via curators or algorithms.[6]

Social journalism has been attacked by media critic Michael Wolff in USA Today as the "Forbes vanity model letting ‘contributors’ write whatever they want under your brand (‘as I wrote in Forbes …’) and not having to pay them anything — ultimately, of course, devaluing your authority." [7]

In a March 20, 2014 op-ed for The New York Observer, former FastCompany.com president Ed Sussman argued that social journalism does not devalue the authority of brands and that the success of Forbes.com in attracting a wide audience with its 1,000+ bloggers proved that the model could be successful for traditional media companies. [8] Following revelations that some Forbes.com contributors used their columns to allegedly participate in a "pump and dump" scheme to promote, then sell stocks, Sussman followed up with "The New Rules of Social Journalism: A Proposal" in Pando Daily, on March 29, 2014. Sussman proposed various rules for elevating the quality and ethics of social journalism content.[9]

Early adopter[edit]

An early, or perhaps the first "social journalism" platform at a major media company was FastCompany.com, in 2008.[10] After the platform launched, in its first six months, FastCompany.com signed up 2,000 bloggers and 50,000 members.[11] "Fast Company is the first, but certainly not last, mainstream publication to integrate the majority of their site as a social community," wrote media analyst Jeremiah Owyang in 2008, then a senior social computing analyst for Forrester Research.[12] After Ed Sussman left the website, the Fast Company print magazine editors reverted it to a standard journalism website.[13]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Sussman, Ed. "Why Michael Wolff is Wrong". New York Observer. Retrieved 10 February 2015. 
  2. ^ Sussman, Ed. "Why Michael Wolff is Wrong". New York Observer. Retrieved 10 February 2015. 
  3. ^ Glick, Jonathan. "Rise of the Platishers". Re/Code. Retrieved 17 February 2014. 
  4. ^ Little, Mark. "10 Principles that Power Social Journalism". Storyful. Retrieved 12 March 2014. 
  5. ^ Chozik, Amy. "The Guardian’s Alan Rusbridger: ‘It’s Essential to Be Paranoid’". New York Times Sunday Magazine. Retrieved 7 March 2014. 
  6. ^ a b Ingram, Mathew. "Social Journalism and Open Platforms Are the New Normal - Now We Have to Make Them Work". Giga Om. Retrieved 1 April 2014. 
  7. ^ Wolff, Michael. "New cash, new questions for Business Insider". USA Today. Retrieved 17 March 2014. 
  8. ^ Sussman, Ed. "Why Michael Wolff is Wrong". New York Observer. Retrieved 10 February 2015. 
  9. ^ Sussman, Ed. "The New Rules of Social Journalism". Pando Daily. Retrieved 29 March 2014. 
  10. ^ Sussman, Ed. "The Media is Social". FastCompany.com. Retrieved 8 February 2008. 
  11. ^ Sussman, Ed. "Why Michael Wolff is Wrong". New York Observer. Retrieved 10 February 2015. 
  12. ^ Owyang, Jeremiah. "An Initial Analysis of the Fast Company Community". Web Strategist. Retrieved 20 February 2008. 
  13. ^ Sussman, Ed. "Why Michael Wolff is Wrong". New York Observer. Retrieved 10 February 2015.