## Content As results were being tallied for the U.S. Presidential Elections last year, it occurred to me how easy it would be for some one to misuse some of those graphics being used in various projections. [link](https://twitter.com/prateekwaghre/status/1323881554083418112) ![[Pasted image 20210827171911.png]] *At the time, I thought even if someone did it, it probably wouldn't stick for more than a few days. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that isn't true.* What it did make clear, was that participants in the information ecosystem would really need to [rethink](https://twitter.com/prateekwaghre/status/1324013016048783360) the ways in which they've done things for a long time. 2 recent posts/articles got me thinking about this again - especially with respect to news media orgs (Note: this may have limited application to those operating with perverse incentives). 1. This [thread](https://twitter.com/evelyndouek/status/1430857768974618627?s=20) by Evelyn Douek (also see the subsequent exchange with Elise Thomas) on an 11-year old article doing the rounds on Facebook. 2. This [article](https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/08/facebook-sent-a-ton-of-traffic-to-a-chicago-tribune-story-so-why-is-everyone-mad-at-them/) by Joshua Benton on the implications of the most viewed article in Facebook's -buried-then-released most widely viewed content for Q1 2021. Both raise some difficult to answer questions. For now, I see 2 buckets. How should media orgs think about their own role with regard to: ###### Out of date content: To be fair to The Guardian, they are one of the few publications that indicate when an article is old (even on image thumbnails). That doesn't mean it is effective though. And depending on the context, it may simply be irrelevant. We know that information will always be updated as events unfold/new things are discovered. But here's the thing - the way we produce and publish news currently, articles are a snapshot of what the information we have at a particular instant of time. Updates/new information are typically new stories - not explicitly linked to an older one (crucially, the older one is not linked to the updated one). Perhaps this made sense when there were: - well defined publishing intervals - limited publications I'm not sure we can change the publishing/production aspects anytime soon (unless someone has a working crystal ball lying around somewhere) but there is scope to change how we organise this information so that it is presented as a whole instead of being in bits and pieces. ###### Moderating (if I can use that word) content from news wires: This one is fun. For all the grief that media orgs (I realise I am painting in broad strokes here) give social media platforms with stories about content moderation, platforms vs publishers, editorialising, etc. Joshua Benton points out: > There’s no way for mainstream news organizations to keep all the poison out of social media, of course. But is it too much to ask for news outlets to refrain from dropping it in ourselves? Or at least to be a little reflective when it turns out _we_ were the ones doing the poisoning? There's a broader point too here. While this particular case was about a story that came in through a wire service, this applies to in-house stories too. > Should these news outlets have published those stories about Dr. Michael in January? Maybe you’ll disagree, but for me the clear answer is no. > We’re talking about a single case — for which there was zero evidence to suggest a connection beyond a calendar. (“A ‘healthy’ doctor died two weeks after eating an Egg McMuffin.” “A ‘healthy’ doctor died two weeks after hugging his son really hard.” “A ‘healthy’ doctor died two weeks after getting a new haircut.”) The closest thing to evidence presented is that the CDC is looking into the case. But _of course they are_ — that’s literally their job! > _Even if_ this side effect had turned out to be much more common than it is, to turn one Facebook post about one person into a national story is something I don’t think is editorially justifiable. > Meanwhile, it was _100% predictable_ that this story would be waved around as “proof” that the vaccine is a secret murder machine. This is, after all, a core tactic of anti-vaccine activists: using a [single unproven case](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/02/24/fact-check-meme-deaths-after-covid-19-vaccination-lacks-context/4508599001/) to increase doubt in a vaccine that’s been taken by hundreds of millions of people. > Many news orgs have [written](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/06/14/1004757554/anti-vaccine-activists-use-a-federal-database-to-spread-fear-about-covid-vaccine) [stories](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/antivaccine-activists-use-government-database-side-effects-scare-public) about how the VAERS system — essentially a giant database of unverified anecdotal data anyone can add to — has become a [tool](https://harvardpolitics.com/cdc-database-misinformation/) of [abuse](https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-health/dont-fall-vaers-scare-tactic) by anti-vaccine types. But that doesn’t stop them from writing stories about single unverified cases — and acting shocked if they do big numbers on Facebook. ## Related Notes [[Rethinking Goals of participants in the information ecosystem]] ## Colophon %% title:: Rethinking Roles in the information ecosystem type:: [[output]] [[permanent-note]] tags:: [[information ecosystem]] url:: file:: %% status:: [[brewing]] created:: 2021-08-27