Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

When News Goes Totally Digital, How Do You Create Trust?

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted March 12, 2009.


Is brand power the best way to keep the news trustworthy?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

I spent much of last fall at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government as a Fellow at the Shorenstein Center for the Press, Politics and Public Policy. While there, I researched issues related to journalism, trust and credibility - and in particular what role emerging social media might play in addressing those concerns. Here's the latest in a series of posts on the topic of emerging media and journalism. (Read Part 1: "Word of Mouse" — Part 2: "The New Breed of New Media Researchers" — Part 3: “Public Displays of Connection“) - Rory O'Connor

Google CEO Eric Schmidt believes the Internet is a "cesspool" of false information, and that filters are needed to help sort through the muck and mire. Most observers agree that some sort of credibility/trust delivery filter for news and information is now necessary — how else can we be sure that the news we see and hear is actually true? — but they disagree as to what the best filter may be. Predictably, corporate executives like Schmidt offer their corporate "brands" as the answer. “Brands are the solution, not the problem,” Schmidt told a collection of top American magazine editors last fall. “Brands are how you sort out the cesspool.”

Many executives in traditional media companies share Schmidt's belief in brand power. Richard Stengel, executive editor of Time Magazine, is among them. At the Time Warner "Politics 2008 - Media Summit" in October, Stengel remarked, "I actually think that in this blizzard-like universe of news usage, brands are actually more important and rising above the chaos because people don't have places they can trust and rely on."

Paul Slavin, senior vice president of digital media at ABC News, is in accord. "Brands are the answer to the credibility questions," Slavin says. "ABC News is known worldwide, and most people feel we are balanced and fair, that we offer a vetted, careful environment for news and information." He believes that brands are already being used as a necessary filter to combat the "too much information" problem, and that our reliance on them will grow over time. "Brand power will only increase as noise level increases," Slavin explains. "It will all come back to tried and true brands. The fundamental understanding of and protection of our brand truly is our future."

Slavin, who has coordinated ABC News' exploration of and collaboration with the emerging media, said in a 2008 interview that ABC "started looking for relationships with social networks a year and a half ago. We looked at MySpace first, then Facebook." The motive, he says, was simple: "We wanted to tap into their younger demo and expose them to our content." In the end, ABC decided to work with Facebook. "Facebook friends function as personal aggregators, and that can be very powerful," Slavin believes. "We needed to figure out how to tap into that."

In November 2007, ABC entered into a formal partnership with Facebook, the first of its kind with a traditional media outlet. The agreement enabled Facebook users to follow ABC reporters electronically, view reports and video and participate in polls and debates. The companies also announced that they would collaborate to sponsor a presidential debate in New Hampshire on January 5, 2008. Facebook users around the world could connect and instantly discuss the debate as it occurred live on ABC.

The ABC Facebook page received a lot of traffic "when actively promoted by Facebook," says Slavin. "We had very good cooperation and coordination initially, and it resulted in 1.5 million downloads." Slavin recalls. Later the social network changed direction, however, and decided it didn't want "a strong relationship with just one media group like ABC. We had talked about more collaboration in the general election," Slavin says. "Our goal was to expand our audience to include people not coming to us for news already. The Facebook relationship can be very powerful if and when Facebook wants to do it and pushes it."

Why was ABC so interested in the online social networks? "If you're ABC News, your content can spread virally through all these friend networks," Steve Outing, an interactive media columnist for Editor & Publisher magazine, explained to the New York Times. Slavin says, "In terms of the election, it gave us another way to communicate and to generate interest and questions for town halls. Sure, we were looking for ways to connect with their audience of young people. We had already looked at YouTube - then they did a debate with CNN and got very hot." (YouTube's partnership with CNN for two debates during the primary season was perhaps the most high-profile emerging media/legacy media partnership during the 2008 presidential election cycle. Users were able to upload video questions for the candidates, which were then vetted by YouTube and CNN and played during the debates. CNN came under fire during one debate, however, for unknowingly allowing a retired brigadier general who served on an advisory committee to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to ask the candidates about gay men and lesbians in the military. The retired general had uploaded his question via YouTube.)


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: media, news, internet, brands, trust

Filmmaker and journalist Rory O'Connor is the author of "Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio" (AlterNet Books, 2008). O'Connor also writes the Media Is A Plural blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Autonomy and Absolutism
Posted by: talkville on Mar 13, 2009 2:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It always comes back to one's own autonomy, critical thinking and evaluative skills and having confidence in them and being willing to not only be "right" but to be "wrong" in relation to simple and complicated issues. So far as I know, there's never been a particular, actual human who was only one or the other.

There is no way, upon seeing it, that I will ever "trust" an image simply because it's there in front of me.

There's no way, upon hearing it, that I will ever "trust" a proposition, a claim, a 'fact' or a description simply because this or that person or 'expert' or 'insider' or whatever says it.

There's no way, living within it, that I will ever "trust" a mediated system of information almost wholly owned and operated by for-profit (not only in dollars!) individuals, institutions and corporations or the corporate state.

Always, depending on the seriousness and the impact and relevance to my own and my society of the particular issue(s) involved, it is incumbent on me to pursue and clarify and seek out confirmations or disproof or value of whatever it is being presented. It's a matter of autonomy, doing one's own thinking and participating with others in deciding on the relative and not absolute "trust-worthiness" of an issue or concern that affects all of us. It's about taking responsibility and doing one's own work -- self- as well as other- checking.

There's no such thing as absolute or automatic "trust" when it comes to mediated information. After all, we are not parrots but humans. And in a society that has fetishised that old abstraction of the Individual that "trucks and barters" and not much else, to "trust" on sight or sound is a recipe for, well, disaster.

It's about autonomy, responsibility and ethics. Of course, one can always just believe what one's told...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just use your brain, it's there for a reason
Posted by: teel on Mar 13, 2009 3:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll take it all and do the sorting myself thanks. I don't need a big news agency to filter my news and feed it to me in short easy to understand punchlines and one-liners. I've seen some of these idiots who get their news solely from Fox and the lack of critical thinking in these zombies should be a warning sign to anyone.

Oh and google, just stick to indexing website already.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Credibility of media brands
Posted by: Scarabus on Mar 13, 2009 12:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In print, the NYT published Judith Miller's uncritical parroting of White House lies, contributing in important ways to getting us to accept the invasion of Iraq. Am I expected now to trust what they say on the web?

Am I expected to trust Google or Yahoo or whatever to filter/censor (no clear distinction) what I get to read or watch or hear? Yeah, right. Especially when the company's CEO says he will give me only what he "sorts out of a cesspool"? I don't want anything that guy sorts out a cesspool!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All MSM/NPR/PBS
Posted by: weathered on Mar 13, 2009 3:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
had a fire sale on 9/11 and integrity went up in smoke.

'if its not reported, it never happened'

'by deceit we wage war'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We will have trust when their stories become real
Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson on Mar 22, 2009 4:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We will believe their news when it is well researched and corporations give the people what to read. We don't pay for bad journalism and lies.

We don't need fairy tales from our government leaders via the media about Bin Laden or "terrorists". We don't need to tape up our windows or sit on our roofs looking for the enemy. What bull for fear and profit.

News is not entertainment. The news today on TV and newspapers are failing because they lied, became too greedy, laid off good journalists because of debt, etc. It is failing because of their lies and political agenda also.

When you take a "liberal" award wining newspaper (LA and NY Times. Denver Post, etc.) and turn it a Conservative one, the locals will drop it. Cities all over the country have had the "liberal and Progressive message" erased. They fail because they deserve to.

On line stories and journalism is more trustful then the other media today. Everyday citizens add to the discussion and do their own research. Experienced journalists, who werelet go because of cut backs (mergers and debt), need jobs and will write else where. The lack of of truth and constant journalistic control by the editors, etc. for political gain also made them leave. They are now joining on line news web sites (or creating their own).

We are an educated society not backward Dark Ages serfs. Even serfs rose up and demanded better pay and food, etc. They fought to have education and to be able to by their Bible, etc. The king didn't get away with plundering and killing at that time either.

We have monoply laws but they are not being enforced. The few voices rule the discussion today a their own risk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

stick a LOT OF AMERICAN flags on it...
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Mar 30, 2009 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
& inundate it with terms like:

"American WAY!"
"American INTERESTS!"
"American PEOPLE!"


& a few trumpeting statements about 'American superiority' or the tragic lack of these values in other cultures.

of COURSE Americans will eat it up like vultures.

THAT'S EFFECTIVE BRANDING & MARKETING...!! & it hasn't failed yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement