newsonaut
Turning inner space into outer space
Saturday, October 31, 2020
U.S. news is more exciting but why should I care?
My news-cation comes to an end tomorrow, but not completely. I'll continue my detox from world news. I'm not yet ready to stomach whatever is going on in the United States.
Speaking of which, I have long wondered why many Canadians use U.S. networks such as CNN as their primary source of news. How do they know what's going on in their own country? Why do they care about events in a foreign country that have no effect on them?
I suspect it might be the same reason many Canadians prefer the NFL over the CFL. It's more entertaining.
The U.S. news consists of one major crisis after another. You can't help but wonder what crazy thing is going to happen next. And because it doesn't affect us, we can behave like bloodthirsty spectators at a wrestling match.
Political debates consist of little more than opponents shouting over each other. You learn precious little, but they can be fun to watch.
Aside from that, what transpires is on a scale Canadians cannot match. American outdo us at every turn, from COVID-19 deaths to mass shootings. It makes our news seem sedate.
So powerful is the influence of U.S. news that Canadians will organize protests over events that happen there. The George Floyd killing is a perfect example. While that death was undeniably a tragedy, there are plenty of injustices happening right here in our home and native land. When was the last time there were nationwide protests over the treatment of Indigenous people that included non-Indigenous Canadians? Outright racist behaviour in this country is excused and nuanced.
Despite this, I will again be tuning into Canadian news when my news-cation ends. For one thing the toxicity levels are more bearable. For another, it affects me as a citizen. I can get involved, I can cast a ballot.
More posts in the News category
Thursday, October 15, 2020
News-cation: interim report
Half way through my October news-cation, the changes I’ve noticed in myself are a mixed bag — but mostly good.
I feel more focussed on my immediate world, including my family, which is a good thing. But also on self-improvement habits such as writing, tai chi, reading and walking. I think I’m also more calm and relaxed — it’s hard to say for sure.
If there is a downside, it might be that I’m stressed more work. Without the distraction of pandemic stats and the Idiot in Chief, I may be thinking about office politics more than usual. On the other hand, there’s a lot going on, so it’s possible a news diversion wouldn’t have helped.
I had hoped that detoxing from bad news would help me sleep better, but I haven’t noticed a difference.
It’s been a worthy experiment, and I intend to see it through. Come Nov. 1, I’ll gradually ease my way back by only reading news about the city and the province. After a couple of weeks, I will expand to the nation. I may never go back to world — at least not until the Orange One is ousted, which could be in a few months or a few years.
More posts in the News category
Saturday, October 3, 2020
This just in — news-cation breached
It didn’t take long for my news-cation to be disrupted by people who thought it important that I know the Leader of the Free World has COVID-19. So what should I do with this information? Did it really warrant a break from news-cation?
Underlying this news is a feeling that he got what he deserved. He was reckless at rallies, downplayed the severity of the pandemic, and is generally a jerk about everything.
I’ll admit there is some poetic justice here. Still, it’s not something I want to dwell on. I would rather think about positive things in the world that affect me — like the beautiful sunny day we’re having today.
I’m not being superficial. The weather, as mundane as it may be, still has a more immediate effect on my health and welfare than the current state of a foreign leader.
By the time my news-cation is over, on Nov. 1, the resources of the richest nation in the history of the world will have brought its president back to health, and all this to-do will be a distant blip in the rear-view mirror.
So back to news-cation. I already have a far more interesting and relevant topic in mind for tomorrow’s post.
More posts in the News category
Thursday, October 1, 2020
Going on news-cation for the month of October
We recently went away for a weekend to a region that, according to health authorities, has not had a single case of COVID-19.
There were a lot of things that helped make the time away relaxing, but I’m pretty sure one of them was getting away from the news.
I’ve been a news junkie pretty much from the time I was able to read the daily newspaper that was delivered to our door. I worked a few decades as a journalist, and now, thanks to the news fire hose of the Internet, I can sate myself with current events 24-seven.
But with the ever-escalating shit show south of the border (a.k.a. election campaign), I’ve decided it’s time for a more long-term break. Half the headlines in my news feeds are about the latest idiotic thing done by the American head of state. I’m starting to think that news organizations are deliberately trolling us with trump-bait.
I’m tired of feeling alternately outraged and helpless. I can’t even vote! So I’m doing the next best thing: a news-cation.
During the month of October, I’m taking a break from the news to see what effect this has on me. Here’s what I predict.
1. Less time scrolling through news apps, and more time on hobbies, some of which I will have to develop to fill the extra time.
2. Less stress and more relaxation, which could lead to better sleep and better overall mental and physical health.
I don’t have a hard way of measuring these things, so any change I notice will have to be subjective. Still, I’m optimistic.
More posts in the News category
Sunday, March 31, 2019
Apple News only works well with the +
The message you get from Apple News is clear: unless you’re willing to pay for a subscription, don’t bother.
The epitome of this message came today in the form of a headline from the Wall Street Journal: Apple News+ is great for magazine lovers, but it’s not the future of news.
And right underneath it: an Apple News+ label.
In other words, we have a deep-dive story about Apple News+, but can only read it if we subscribe to Apple News+.
But maybe we don’t really need to, because so much is said in that headline that rings true.
Apple News (without the plus) is a collection of news and magazine stories, some of which are free and some of which are only available if you subscribe to Apple News+. The split is about half and half.
The free stuff is mostly news articles that you can find elsewhere — either on competing news apps or by going to websites.
The stuff you have to pay for is more exclusive. That article from the Wall Street Journal likely contains insights you won’t find elsewhere — at least not of the same high quality.
But it’s mostly magazine articles that demand a subscription. There are a lot of them, and they all look good. Gaining access ($12.99 in Canada, $9.99 in the U.S.) is an amazing bargain.
So if, as the Wall Street Journal says, you’re a magazine lover, paying for Apple News+ is a no-brainer.
Apple News (sans plus), on the other hand, will leave you unsatisfied and annoyed. You’re stuck with navigating around half the articles because you haven’t paid for them. And for the other half, well, there is much more satisfying way of discovering and reading them. It’s called Flipboard.
More posts in the News category
Friday, November 11, 2016
Facebook users need to speak up: we don't want fake news
If you read — and believed — a news item saying that a candidate was involved in child trafficking, would you vote for them?
I sure wouldn’t. But on other hand, I would have found it hard to believe — especially if this was being said about a reputable charity and if the source of the news was one I had never heard of.
Yet, this is exactly the kind of thing people are reading and believing on Facebook. I know of two people who believed something they read “on the Internet” about the Clinton Foundation being involved in child trafficking.
It didn’t take much for me to track this “news” to an anonymous comment on an obscure forum. But for a lot of people, Facebook is a trusted brand. They don’t think to question what they read there.
The child-trafficking story is just one example of fake news on Facebook. And before you pooh-pooh the influence of Facebook, have a look at the latest statistics from the Pew Research Center.
Almost 80 per cent of Americans on the Internet have a Facebook account. And about three-quarters of those with accounts check in every day. The figures for Canada and much of the world are likely similar.
That is the power and reach of Facebook, something that the company has carefully cultivated over the years, because it help it helps them sell stuff and make money — worthy goals for any business. But on the other hand, they can’t turn around and blithely ignore the fact that if they are influencing people’s ideas about what to buy, they are also influencing their ideas about how to vote.
CEO Mark Zuckerberg is in denial:
Personally I think the idea that fake news on Facebook, which is a very small amount of the content, influenced the election in any way — I think is a pretty crazy idea. Voters make decisions based on their lived experience.
Emily Bell, writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, has a perfect response:
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg posted a picture of himself in quarter-profile, with his toddler daughter Max, as they watched Donald Trump become president of the United States. The smiley emoji on his post says he is “hopeful.” “Holding Max, I thought about all the work ahead of us to create the world we want for our children,” he wrote. The good news for Zuckerberg is that, unlike most people, he can make the world a better place almost immediately just by taking more responsibility for Facebook’s publishing policies. By acknowledging that Facebook can and should play a more active part in editing—yes, editing—its own platform, and hiring actual people to do so, Zuckerberg will further the civic commons as well as address a growing problem of how people perceive Facebook.
We used to worry about people being uninformed and apathetic. Now we have to worry about them being misinformed and taking action based on misinformation.
I fear we may reach a point where news becomes more disreputable than advertising. At least advertising has to adhere to certain minimum standards of truthfulness. The purveyors of fake news, on the other hand, can crank out all the junk they like and get away with it.
There is hope, though. Facebook did finally back down from allowing race-based advertising. In the end, they had to respond to an outcry from their users, because a tarnished reputation would be bad for business.
If Zuckerberg refuses to do anything about fake news, he risks Facebook eventually suffering the same fate as other platforms that have become abandoned cesspools.
I don’t expect people to leave Facebook in droves any time soon, but in the mean time there are things you can do.
First, understand that everything you read has a source. News articles, even fake ones, are written by someone who works for an organization of some kind. Check out the source. If it’s something you’ve never heard of, and if the news isn’t being carried by an organization you know to be reputable, then chances are it’s not real.
Second, if an item is obviously fake, don’t click on it. A lot of these stories are so outrageous that you can’t help but want to read more — if only for entertainment value. Resist the temptation, because Facebook’s computer algorithm will take your click as a sign you want more stories like that. Don’t encourage them.
Third, if you are concerned about fake news, then say so in a Facebook post. It might not seem like they are listening, but if enough users express a concern, they will have no choice.
According to Forbes, Facebook is the fifth most valuable brand in the world. That could easily change if enough of us no longer trust them.
More posts in the News category
Saturday, August 15, 2015
News might seem negative because it doesn't reflect our reality
Now and again, managers in the news industry hear complaints from readers or viewers that the news is too negative.
Their concerns are understandable. Intuitively, it makes sense that exposing yourself to news about the bad things in the world will affect your own outlook.
A blog at Psychology Today, called Why We Worry, says that “negative sensationalism” in the news has increased in the past few decades. The writer, Graham C.L. Davey, cites this as his belief, but many would likely agree with him.
He concludes that “not only are negatively valenced news broadcasts likely to make you sadder and more anxious, they are also likely to exacerbate your own personal worries and anxieties.”
That may be true, but it could also be argued that the news provides a distraction. After all, the time you spend thinking about a devastating forest fire is time you don’t spend thinking about the ups and downs of your own life.
People who describe themselves as news junkies might really be people with a tendency to avoid facing up to the realities of what’s happening at home — even if that reality is simple boredom.
Somewhere in the midst of all this lies the Humans of New York project. This is a blog that consists of photo portraits of ordinary people with accompanying interviews. Sometimes the text is an off-the-cuff remark, but often it details compelling details about the person’s life.
The man behind the project, American photographer Brandon Stanton, has a massive following on social media due to his ability to captures slices of life that go to the core of our humanity. He is currently travelling in Pakistan, where he has been welcomed with open arms.
If you know anything about Pakistan, it’s likely from news reports about violence and terrorism. This is the country where Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. troops. This is the country accused of harbouring the Taliban. This the home of Malala Yousafzai, who was shot because of her advocacy for education for girls.
But Pakistan is a large country with many millions of people who have nothing to do with the things we see in the news. This is why so many of them were glad to have Stanton chronicle the joys and sorrows of their day-to-day lives.
According to Vocativ, his popularity on Facebook has exploded with thousands of new fans from Pakistan.
An open letter to the Express Tribune says it all:
Brandon, it is true that my country, like any other country in the world, is filled with horrible people who do dreadful things. My state has been known to make stupid decisions too. However, there is so much good here as well. There are such good souls here; people who restore one’s faith in humanity. There is always another side to things, and you my friend, are showing the world that side.
The popularity of Humans of New York is not that it presents good news instead of bad. In fact, much of what it shows is mixture of hope and tragedy. It’s different because it breaks through the filter of what those with influence consider to be important. We see what truly occupies, to a greater or lesser extent, every human — families, health, shelter, relationships.
When people talk about there being too much negativity in the news, what they might really mean is that there not enough realism — surely things can’t be that bad.
It’s true that the world is not always a nice place, and we need to know about that so we can continue to find ways to make it better. Still, it’s good to remember that what’s more important could be happening right now in your own home and in the homes of people everywhere.
More posts in the News category
Saturday, June 13, 2015
Apple throws a lifeline to the news industry with News app
I signed up for Apple’s News Publisher today. Why? Because when iOS9 debuts on millions of iPhones and iPads this fall, newsonaut will instantly be available to a massive new readership.
Of course, signing up was the easy part. Whether I gain anything from it remains to be seen. For a number a reasons, it seems worth a shot for any publisher — from lowly blogs like mine to some of the biggest in the industry.
In fact, Apple already has a bunch of major publishers on board, including The Economist, Vanity Fair, The New York Times and BuzzFeed.
What they gain is an appearance a new app that will be installed on every device that upgrades to iOS9. It will be called, simply, News. Readers are being promised beautifully presented articles about topics of their choice. And publishers will get 100 per cent of the revenue from ads they sell to go along with the articles. That amount is reduced to 70 per cent if Apple sells the ads for them.
Imagine a version of Flipboard, which is one of my favourite sources of news, but with a wider selection of sources and a richer presentation — i.e., more graphics and videos. If the app takes off, it could represent a good source of revenue for publishers and help them pay for better journalism.
It also represents a shift that has become apparent in the past few years toward what is being called distributed content. As explained by Nieman Lab:
Individual news apps and individual news brands aren’t the primary point of contact with news any more. They’re raw material, feeding into broader platforms. The loss of power for publishers in that exchange is obvious; the potential benefits remain mostly undiscovered.
One thing I’m not clear about is whether you will be able to choose individual publications to read, or whether you’ll just choose topics and have articles show up based on what the software thinks you’ll find most interesting. If that’s the case, the chances of newsonaut showing up in someone’s feed may be slim. Still, even a little extra exposure would be nice.
At Macworld, Glenn Fleishman says the app is going to be all about pushing content to readers. You won’t be able to pull in specifically what you want.
Apple is relying on machine learning to sort incoming articles into a million search terms and categories. Machine learning relies on massive datasets that allow neural-network software to be trained in subtleties and pull out patterns it can apply.
I can see where this would be troubling for smaller, struggling publishers. After all, how can they hope to get attention when there is a flood of content from much bigger competitors. I’m hoping Apple can get this sorted out, because in addition to keeping established voices viable, it would be in everyone’s interest to help nurture new ones.
More posts in the News category
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Google now the most trusted source of news, even though it doesn't produce any
When you think of trusted sources of news, what comes to mind? If you thought of a daily newspaper or a major TV network, then you may be hopelessly old fashioned.
As reported by Search Engine Land, a survey by the Edelman Trust Barometer shows that search engines are now the most trusted source of news. That’s right — many people would rather trust Google than the Globe and Mail.
The flaw here is obvious. Google, Bing and Yahoo don’t have reporters or editors or photographers. Their employees are a bunch of computer scientists.
When people look to a search engine for news, what they’re really doing is seeking out a variety of real news sources and picking one of them. The source they often choose is the website of a newspaper or TV station that actually does have reporters, editors and photographers.
So there is hope. When people say they trust Google, what they may be saying is that they trust it to find trustworthy sources.
Even so, the fact that an increasing number of people are turning to search engines is still bad news for traditional media. After all, advertisers follow eyeballs, and that means Google is a competitor.
The struggling Postmedia newspaper chain is slashing costs and buying up other papers in a bid to create an economy of scale that will lure ad dollars from Google and Facebook. Toronto Star business columnist David Olive writes that citizens have a stake in what happens to Postmedia:
Postmedia’s papers with their depopulated newsrooms run the risk of becoming irrelevant as a bulwark of democracy. Which might not matter all that much except that so many Canadians still rely on them. There’s no obvious alternative to, say, the Edmonton Journal, for authoritative local news about Canada’s “Gateway to the North” and about the world.
The whole column is worth reading. Needless to say, Olive is skeptical about Postmedia’s prospects.
And while this should be disturbing to those of us who feel a well-informed citizenry is important to the proper functioning of a democracy, it should also be alarming to the Internet giants largely responsible for this state of affairs. After all, Google and Facebook need trustworthy news sources to keep their advertisers and readers happy. They may find that they are killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
Facebook executives recognize this and have pitched solutions to help the news industry. One would be to simply publish everything straight to Facebook and forget about having your own website — otherwise known as selling your soul to the devil.
Google and Facebook may be considered trustworthy by the people who use them. But for those who actually produce the news, there is very little trust.
More posts in the News category
Friday, July 4, 2014
News sites should be frightened by the power Google has over them
Google has restored links to stories on the Guardian’s website, but not the BBC’s, as it struggles with implementation of Europe’s “right to be forgotten” law.
Is this good news or bad? It’s hard to say because Google hasn’t given the reasoning behind its decisions.
“Their current approach appears to be an overly broad interpretation,” a spokeswoman for the Guardian said. “If the purpose of the judgment is not to enable censorship of publishers by the back door, then we’d encourage Google to be transparent about the criteria it is using to make these decisions, and how publishers can challenge them.”
I have a feeling that if Google were to be transparent, they’d be admitting to a process that resembles throwing darts while blindfolded. They’re just as confused as the rest of us.
It really is a tragedy that the news industry is so dependent on Google. Without links, without good search-engine ranking, news sites have little hope of surviving.
The way things have worked out on the Internet, the search function is owned almost entirely by one company. Here’s a point to ponder: why is search not simply a built-in protocol for the web? Email and file-transfers aren’t owned by anyone, so why is search?
Ironically, the only way to research a question like that is by doing a Google search — and even so you’ll find precious few answers.
Could news organizations get together and create a search engine of their own to compete with Google? Could we make a news-oriented search engine that would actually be better than Google?
I’d better watch out. Such musings could result in links to this post being forgotten . . .
Credit: Graphic showing global search engine market share from Relentless Technology.
More posts in the News category
