After Vine’s announcement to discontinue the mobile app in the coming months, Maria Crosas Batista pulled together 5 good stories on data visualisation (first published on her site Dinfografia).
1.Legal vs illegal weapons in the US
The Huffington Post’s UK editor-in-chief Stephen Hull has provoked a curious backlash on Twitter following an appearance on Radio 4’s Media Show where he was asked why he doesn’t pay writers, writes Alex Iacovangelo.
“I love this question,” he replied:
“If I was paying someone to write something because I want it to get advertising, that’s not a real authentic way of presenting copy.
“When somebody writes something for us, we know it’s real, we know they want to write it. It’s not been forced or paid for. I think that’s something to be proud of.”
Tweeters quickly condemned him for encouraging the tactic during a time when jobs are being cut and budding journalists struggle to financially survive.
Below are some of the tweets, you can read the rest on this link:
(Note: @edcaesar quoted Stephen Hull)
@edcaesar In that case, he should refuse his salary – we wouldn’t want his corrupted paid-for editing would we? His editing should be “real”
— Stuart McGurk (@stuartmcgurk) February 18, 2016
@edcaesar Ed, this is a disgusting way to treat people. And to quote yourself like that! I thought more of you. This is where we part.
— Letters of Note (@LettersOfNote) February 18, 2016
— Stephen Killick (@SteveKills) February 18, 2016
.@edcaesar When I scream ARSEHOLE at him, nobody will be paying me. He’ll know it’s real.
— Eddie Robson (@EddieRobson) February 18, 2016
@edcaesar Bullshit. This fellow just needs to admit they are too cheap to pay authors & too corrupt to share earning off their writing!
— Nuzhat S. Siddiqi (@guldaar) February 18, 2016
— Torraine Walker (@TorraineWalker) February 18, 2016
@edcaesar Which is why I stopped writing for them – also because they don’t promote the writing, and also because of the Sidebar of Shame.
— Judi Sutherland (@judi_sutherland) February 18, 2016
@edcaesar No. Are you insinuating that people who do get paid for their work are less real? THIS is why I did not choose to write for you.
— Wordtasting (@Cookwitch) February 18, 2016
— That Dave McKinnon (@DaveMcKinnon__) February 18, 2016
.@edcaesar What’s even worse is that “exposure” hungry writers do it, not realising that all it adds to their CV is: “Happy to be exploited”
— Sam Rowe (@samrowe_) February 18, 2016
Maybe it’s the HuffPost UK editor’s salary that is making them speak such inauthentic bollocks @edcaesar
— Abi Wilkinson (@AbiWilks) February 18, 2016
@edcaesar Surely has opposite effect. If not getting paid then fuck it, if all elements of a piece arent 100% correct what are they losing?
— Simon Margolis (@Si_Margolis) February 18, 2016
@edcaesar Another interpretation: because we don’t pay them, there’s no onus on them to write truthfully or do proper research.
— Bobbito Ball (@bobbitoball) February 18, 2016
— asta (@asta) February 18, 2016
— Alt Cricket (@AltCricket) February 18, 2016
We are in the golden age of verification: a generation of journalists trained to process content rather than check it; the culling of the subs who used to; and a generation raised on bullshit with the means to check it and the networks to exchange notes. Continue reading
2014 was the 10th anniversary of the Online Journalism Blog, so I thought I’d better begin keeping track of what each year’s most-read posts were.
In 2014 the overriding themes for this blog were programming for journalists, web security, and social media optimisation. Here are the most-read posts of the year, plus one surprisingly popular new page with some background and updates. Continue reading
Increasingly, when journalists now write headlines for the web or for social media, they specify the medium or format involved. They shout VIDEO and AUDIO in caps at the start of the tweet or post; MAPPED or INFOGRAPHIC; INTERVIEW or LIVEBLOG.
Sometimes the medium or format is implied more subtly, with a call to action: we urge users to ‘Watch’, ‘See’ and ‘Listen’. But we also invite them to ‘Join’, ‘Meet’ and ‘Find out’.
Why do we do this? Part of it is that we recognise that the medium is something special; that users often make a choice based on the medium itself.
But I think putting the medium/format front and centre is about more than just user preference: it’s about abundance and scarcity. Continue reading
Susanna Rustin has written one of the best overviews I’ve yet seen of the growing number of legal cases involving individuals being put in jail for being ‘offensive’ – vital reading if you’re interested in media freedom and media law, given the obvious implications for journalism.
The key law here is the Communications Act 2003, specifically Section 127, which I’ve written about previously in 7 laws journalists now need to know.
Rustin summarises a number of cases where individuals have been prosecuted and jailed under the Act, and focuses in particular on two recent cases relating to social media updates posted following the stabbing of a school teacher.
“The cases of [Jack] Newsome and [Robert] Riley are different. They did not target or menace individuals, and lawyers and human rights campaigners have this week raised concerns about their being jailed for causing offence.”
Former director of public prosecutions Keir Starmer, provides some useful legal context and raises his own concerns around how “too many prosecutions for these kinds of offences can have the effect of chilling free speech”:
“There always used to be a protected space, so you could say things in private you could not say in public. With social media there is no protected space, and that’s what there needs to be a debate about. The notions around place and reaction just don’t work with social media. You could have a situation where two people in their living room make remarks to each other for which they would never be arrested, but if they make these remarks by email, they could be, as the legislation covers any public electronic communication system.”
— Christina D Kenny (@dfordalrymple) February 27, 2014
For some time now basic SEO advice on puns has been simple: don’t do it*.
But the Huffington Post story below (brought to my attention by Christina Kenny) shows how hashtags can make puns SEO-friendly as well – as long as they’ve been adopted by a larger audience, not just coined by the headline writer.
That headline actually has 7 keywords in total – it’s extremely heavily SEO’d for people searching for “sewage pipe burst” and “Kennington” or “South London”.
But it also recognises that many people will be searching for more on this story having seen the #poonami hashtag on Twitter. Continue reading