tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/huffington-post-9629/articlesHuffington Post – The Conversation2021-03-21T13:06:16Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1570122021-03-21T13:06:16Z2021-03-21T13:06:16ZJournalism jobs are precarious, financially insecure and require family support<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390050/original/file-20210317-13-fiydbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=34%2C11%2C7542%2C5032&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Recent layoffs at Bell Media Inc. and Huffington Post Canada have revealed the increasing precarity of journalism work.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Dozens of Canadian journalists were recently laid off as <a href="https://pressprogress.ca/shocked-and-angry-buzzfeed-shuts-down-huff-post-canada-only-two-weeks-after-journalists-filed-to-unionize/">HuffPost news sites were closed by BuzzFeed</a>. Bell Media Inc. has also <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/union-says-bell-media-cuts-hit-210-employees-in-toronto-half-from-newsrooms-1.5292819">laid off hundreds of journalists</a>. </p>
<p>Journalism is a notoriously precarious profession. Downsizing and layoffs are almost routine, and many journalists find themselves bouncing between news organizations and periods of freelance work during their careers. Yet journalism is not the only precarious profession — for decades, scholars have been documenting the increasing precarity of employment.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/24lG0BIDwZ0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Well-known sports journalist Brent Wallace was one of the employees laid off by Bell Media Inc. Wallace had spent over 20 years with TSN.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There has been a rise in freelance and gig work in low-skilled jobs such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818773727">care work</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185618800518">domestic services</a>, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3198546">trade work</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017019836911">delivery services</a> and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2686227">transportation</a>. And there has been a recent increase in gig work in higher-skilled fields such as <a href="http://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262017480.001.0001">information technology</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276408097794">creative work</a> as well. People in these precarious fields of work describe their work as intense and demanding, but at the same time, unstable and insecure.</p>
<h2>Navigating instability</h2>
<p>As scholars of work and organizations, we wanted to understand how people in fields offering mainly precarious employment handle the day-to-day demands of their work as they navigate this instability. We analyzed in-depth interviews gathered from more than 100 journalists — some employed full time, others working as freelancers — about their careers and work experiences. </p>
<p>Our interviewees described their work hours as unpredictable and dictated by the news cycle or editors’ demands. Journalists also described being expected by editors to be geographically mobile for their work, either within a given job to report a particular story, or between contracts in order to move upward or to simply remain in the occupation. Many were concerned that not being amenable to such demands might result in them being perceived to have “lost their legs,” marking them as someone to be laid off.</p>
<p>These demands echo what scholars have termed the ideal worker norm: expectations that good workers will <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206289499">dedicate themselves to their tasks</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2010.532660">place their work ahead of other parts of their life</a>. In exchange for this dedication, workers traditionally received rewards, in the form of steady employment, promotions and pay raises. Yet, for journalists, these rewards were mostly absent or lasted only until the next news organization downsized. </p>
<p>Most of the people we interviewed described persistent financial insecurity and anxiety about the stability of their jobs. Nearly all participants had been laid off — in most cases, multiple times. Recalled one: “I was laid off in a phone call. And, with no reason really. I mean they had laid off a lot of people.”</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1370489457753825281"}"></div></p>
<p>The journalists we studied were caught between intense demands from employers for near-total commitment and persistent anxiety and financial insecurity rooted in the precarious conditions of their work. We find that they make peace between these different pressures by, for the most part, making themselves fully available for their work, and leaning on their families to make up the gaps.</p>
<h2>Family as support system</h2>
<p>In our sample, journalists with families relied heavily on them for logistical support to meet the occupation’s demands, as well as financial support necessary to weather financial insecurity. </p>
<p>Many relied on their spouses or extended family members for household labour, including child care and housework, so they could meet the occupation’s demands for availability and mobility. Some also leaned on their spouses’ work to provide a financial cushion for the unpredictability of their own income. </p>
<p>One, speaking of the importance of her spouse’s steady income to her ability to work in journalism, admitted, “I could not do what I’m doing now if [my spouse] were not footing the bills.” </p>
<p>Some journalists also described relying on extended family members, such as their parents, for ongoing financial support, child care and other logistical help. One told us, “I think even more than gender, race and socio-economics dictate whether you even go into this field, because … I’ve always known that I have a safety net of my parents. I always know that I have a financial and residential safety net should I ever lose my job or have a problem.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390047/original/file-20210317-19-1qflaym.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="journalists filming and watching" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390047/original/file-20210317-19-1qflaym.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390047/original/file-20210317-19-1qflaym.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390047/original/file-20210317-19-1qflaym.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390047/original/file-20210317-19-1qflaym.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390047/original/file-20210317-19-1qflaym.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390047/original/file-20210317-19-1qflaym.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390047/original/file-20210317-19-1qflaym.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Journalists at a media scrum reporting on the opening of a new Daily Bread Food Bank in Toronto in May 2020.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Frank Gunn</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yet not all journalists had families. Many in our sample described sacrificing family life entirely — not having children or a long-term partner — due to the demands of the job. For some, these decisions were conscious, for others, it was an outcome of the demands of the work. </p>
<p>When asked about combining work and personal life, one participant who worked in the profession for 30 years admitted he did not really have a personal life and that his life outside of work was limited to meet-up groups and Saturday night entertainment when he “could afford it” financially. </p>
<p>He shared: “There’s so much emphasis and so much focus on career advancement at the expense of everything else, both suffer … when I work a Tuesday-to-Saturday schedule, it’s hard to have a personal life, especially when you’re on call, like when I was covering breaking news.”</p>
<h2>Precarity is a reality</h2>
<p>Amid the undeniable growth of the gig economy that is predicted to <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccahenderson/2020/12/10/how-covid-19-has-transformed-the-gig-economy/">accelerate even more in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic</a>, precarity has become the reality of the working lives of both professionals and low-skilled workers. The current thinking on the implications of this economy has mostly focused on <a href="https://www.oecd.org/employment/Employment-Outlook-2019-Highlight-EN.pdf">implications for the workers themselves</a>. </p>
<p>Our work suggests that the gig economy imposes costs not only upon the workers, but also upon their families of origin, the families they create and the families they choose not to create. Governments and labour market policy-makers must take these spiralling implications of the gig economy into account as they work to create new policy regulations and solutions for workers and families. </p>
<p>Furthermore, organizations that employ freelance workers must be aware that in a precarious occupation, they’re likely to do everything they can to meet the employer’s demands. That’s a devotion that could result in significant negative emotional and mental health-related consequences.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157012/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Erin Reid receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council as well as the Ontario Early Researcher Award. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Farnaz Ghaedipour receives OGS (Ontario Graduate Scholarship).</span></em></p>A rise in contract and gig work in professional and creative fields is affecting steady employment. Research shows that to maintain a career in these fields, a worker needs to consider family.Erin Reid, Associate professor, Human Resources & Management, McMaster UniversityFarnaz Ghaedipour, PhD Candidate, Business, McMaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1459612020-09-23T12:31:53Z2020-09-23T12:31:53ZWhen noted journalists bashed political polls as nothing more than ‘a fragmentary snapshot’ of a moment in time<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359350/original/file-20200922-22-48n9u4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=31%2C7%2C5100%2C3428&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Legendary New York City columnist Jimmy Breslin, right, ready to do shoe-leather journalistic research in a bar, said preelection polls were "monstrous frauds."</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/american-journalist-and-writer-jimmy-breslin-with-a-copy-of-news-photo/149309915?adppopup=true">Michael Brennan/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Poll-bashing – the aggressive, even extreme lambasting of pollsters and their work – used to be blood sport among prominent American journalists.</p>
<p>Mike Royko, one of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1997/04/30/famed-chicago-columnist-mike-royko-dies-at-age-64/72e75663-21c3-4ee2-b4af-22fb6ab10cbd/">Chicago’s most famous if cantankerous</a> journalists, was a poll-basher. <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-10-28-9204070637-story.html">He advised</a> readers of his Chicago Tribune column in 1992, “If a pollster calls you, lie your head off. No harm will be done, and some good might come of it.”</p>
<p>Arianna Huffington, founder of Huffington Post, also was a poll-basher. From the late 1990s into mid-2000s, she conducted an <a href="http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0010/24/tl.00.html">intermittent and ultimately failed campaign</a> “to get the dominance of polling out of our political life.” The “Partnership for a Poll-Free America,” she called it. </p>
<p>Jimmy Breslin, a blustery and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/business/media/jimmy-breslin-dead-ny-columnist-author.html">legendary columnist</a> for New York City newspapers, was a poll-basher, too. </p>
<p>“Anybody who believes these national political polls are giving you facts is a gullible fool,” Breslin stormed in his Newsday column in 2004. <a href="https://www.villagevoice.com/2004/09/14/say-what-24/">He called preelection polls “monstrous frauds</a>” because at the time they did not reach the comparatively few households having only cellphones. They do now, but in 2004, Breslin figured the polls were missing younger, cellphone-using voters whose support, he wrongly predicted, would send Democrat John Kerry to the White House. </p>
<p>Royko, Huffington and Breslin were among the well-known journalists who resented preelection polls and didn’t mind saying so. They did not denounce polls every day, but their resentment ran deep. And they had plenty of company in journalism.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359349/original/file-20200922-24-qrtg30.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Mike Royko, having breakfast and a cigarette." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359349/original/file-20200922-24-qrtg30.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359349/original/file-20200922-24-qrtg30.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359349/original/file-20200922-24-qrtg30.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359349/original/file-20200922-24-qrtg30.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359349/original/file-20200922-24-qrtg30.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359349/original/file-20200922-24-qrtg30.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359349/original/file-20200922-24-qrtg30.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mike Royko, the grouchy Chicago Tribune columnist, was a noted poll-basher.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/JOURNALISTMIKEROYKO/2c2e901f9ce5da11af9f0014c2589dfb/photo?Query=Mike%20AND%20Royko&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:asc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=4&currentItemNo=1">AP</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>‘Fragmentary snapshot’</h2>
<p>Eric <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/10/arts/eric-sevareid-79-is-dead-commentator-and-reporter.html">Sevareid</a>, the longtime CBS News commentator, confessed to “a secret glee and relief when the polls go wrong.” <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/15/archives/walter-lippmann-political-analyst-dead-at-85-walter-lippmann.html">Walter Lippmann</a>, one of journalism’s titans, wrote in 1936 at the dawn of modern opinion research, “I should be very happy if all the polls turned out to be wrong.” Election polls, he said, were “a nuisance.”</p>
<p>Poll-bashing, which I consider in my latest book, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520300963/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i7">Lost in a Gallup: Polling Failure in U.S. Presidential Elections</a>,” arose from several sources, including doubts whether polls really could read the American mind. </p>
<p>Broadcast legend Edward R. Murrow expressed such sentiments in 1952, after polls failed to anticipate Dwight Eisenhower’s <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/5/newsid_3783000/3783245.stm">landslide election</a> to the presidency. The lopsided result, Murrow said on CBS Radio, signaled that voters “are mysterious and their motives are not to be measured by mechanical means.” Those who believe that Americans are predictable, Murrow said, “have been undone again.”</p>
<p>Other journalists resented the challenge polling posed to “<a href="https://pressthink.org/2015/04/good-old-fashioned-shoe-leather-reporting/">shoe-leather</a>” reporting, the celebrated reportorial technique of direct observation. </p>
<p><a href="https://niemanreports.org/articles/a-political-reporters-toolbox/">“Cover voters, not polls,”</a> was advice the now-defunct Committee of Concerned Journalists offered years ago. “It is voters — what they think, how they live, what they are worried about — that are important (and also more interesting).” </p>
<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/business/media/haynes-johnson-journalist-and-author-dies-at-81.html">Haynes Johnson</a> of The Washington Post was an advocate of shoe-leather reporting, and a harsh critic of polls. During presidential election campaigns in the 1970s and ’80s, Johnson turned out long, interview-based articles about the moods of American voters. </p>
<p>After Ronald Reagan defeated President Jimmy Carter in 1980 in a near-landslide that <a href="https://swampland.time.com/2012/10/31/remembering-1980-are-the-polls-missing-something/">no pollster saw coming</a>, Johnson <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/11/16/election-day-had-a-few-lessons-to-teach-the-out-of-touch-set/4de0feae-d9b9-4802-8d15-30e81e13714a/">scoffed</a>, “Polls are no substitute for hard reporting. In many cases, as it turns out, reporters would have been better served by relying on their own legwork, which in turn produces their own political instincts, than on the presumably scientific samples of voters supplied by the pollsters.” </p>
<p>In a C-SPAN interview in 1991, Johnson declared, <a href="http://booknotes.org/Watch/16899-1/Haynes-Johnson">“I hate the polls,”</a> adding that he wished “we would disband all polls” because they offer only “a little fragmentary snapshot of a moment in time.”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A reporter taking notes." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359373/original/file-20200922-14-z2hb7q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359373/original/file-20200922-14-z2hb7q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359373/original/file-20200922-14-z2hb7q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359373/original/file-20200922-14-z2hb7q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359373/original/file-20200922-14-z2hb7q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359373/original/file-20200922-14-z2hb7q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359373/original/file-20200922-14-z2hb7q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The journalists who criticized political polling thought real reporting did a better job of reflecting voters’ opinions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/writing-notebook-reporter-royalty-free-image/514688797?adppopup=true">snowflock/Getty</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Poll-bashing eases</h2>
<p>Over the past three or four presidential election cycles, though, virulent poll-bashing has ebbed in American journalism. </p>
<p>It’s not that journalists have become more polite. And it’s not as if preelection polling has become immune from error. Far from it.</p>
<p>A number of factors explain the ebbing of poll-bashing. Outspoken critics like Royko, Breslin and Johnson are dead. Huffington is no longer associated with what is now HuffPost. </p>
<p>Each election cycle serves in effect to reconfirm the importance of poll-taking at major newsgathering organizations such as The New York Times and CBS News, where such operations <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/us/pollpage-intro.html">date to the mid-1970s</a>.</p>
<p>The decline of poll-bashing also has coincided with the rise of the data journalist, best personified by Nate Silver, founder of the election forecasting and analysis site <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/">FiveThirtyEight.com</a>.</p>
<p>Silver became a sort of celebrity after his poll-based forecast model <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/media/10silver.html">accurately predicted</a> the outcomes in 49 states in the 2008 presidential election. That status only deepened when his model <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/07/nate-silver-election-forecasts-right">correctly anticipated</a> how all 50 states would vote in the election in 2012, when content at Silver’s site was licensed by The New York Times. </p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>Silver’s forecast went askew in 2016, <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/">projecting Hillary Clinton would win</a> the presidency with 302 electoral votes, a haul that was to include Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Wisconsin. Donald Trump won those states by narrow margins and, with them, the White House.</p>
<p>Because few if any prominent journalists figured Trump had any chance of winning the election, the postelection bashing of Silver was <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/155761/fall-nate-silver">mostly subdued</a>. </p>
<p>In 2016, after all, polling failure was also <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/513735-why-polling-failure-is-often-journalistic-failure">journalistic failure</a>, as polls and poll-based forecasts helped cement the media narrative that Clinton was the odds-on favorite to win.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/145961/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>W. Joseph Campbell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There was a time when well-known journalists resented preelection polls and didn’t mind saying so. One even said he felt “secret glee and relief when the polls go wrong.” Why did they feel this way?W. Joseph Campbell, Professor of Communication Studies, American University School of CommunicationLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/703572016-12-14T00:03:23Z2016-12-14T00:03:23ZHuffington Post, BuzzFeed and Vice are blazing a new trail on climate change coverage<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149897/original/image-20161213-1620-1jgf061.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">shutterstock</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jan Martin Will</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/19/where-is-climate-change-in-the-trump-v-clinton-presidential-debates">deafening silence around climate change</a> in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/2016-us-presidential-election-23653">US presidential campaign</a> has left leading climate scientists baffled by the absence of debate about the “greatest issue of our time”. Some commentators have laid the blame <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/13/climate-change-trump-presidency-environment">firmly on the US media</a> for sticking too closely to the political agendas set by the candidates. </p>
<p>But it is not just in the US where climate change and environmental issues have been virtually ignored. In the UK, a <a href="http://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/eu-referendum/media-coverage-of-the-eu-referendum-report-3/">study by Loughborough University</a> found that during the Brexit referendum, television news bulletins in the six-week period in May and June dedicated no time at all to environmental issues – despite the fact that much of UK environment policy is determined by the EU. Print media did little better. </p>
<p>So what’s going on? Part of the challenge is that TV editors often see climate change as too niche or too preachy. Another is that many audiences find the issue too remote, too frightening, or too consistently depressing. In many countries too, experienced specialist reporters, including science and environment correspondents, <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/specials/sciencejournalism/index.html">are on the decline</a> because of cuts driven by dwindling revenue for legacy media.</p>
<p>In the UK, <a href="http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/publication/journalists-uk">a 2016 report</a> showed that of the 700 journalists surveyed, just over half self-identified as specialists. But while the most populous beats were business, culture, sport, and entertainment, there were “few politics, science, or religious specialists”.</p>
<h2>New kids on the climate beat</h2>
<p>The gap is partly being filled by “digital-born” players such as Huffington Post, BuzzFeed and Vice, who are the subject of our new book <a href="http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/publication/new-players-environmental-reporting">Something Old, Something New</a>. In its <a href="http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/">2016 Digital News Report</a>, the Reuters Institute for the first time asked online users what media sources were most consulted for environment news.</p>
<p>Of those in the UK who self-identified as “highly interested” in the environment, more than half accessed news from the BBC on a weekly basis, making it by far the most popular news brand online. But after the BBC, Huffington Post was used by just under a fifth. Among those with a high interest in news about the environment, it is as popular as both the Guardian and Mail Online. (See Figure 1)</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149879/original/image-20161213-1625-87yfvx.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149879/original/image-20161213-1625-87yfvx.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149879/original/image-20161213-1625-87yfvx.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149879/original/image-20161213-1625-87yfvx.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149879/original/image-20161213-1625-87yfvx.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149879/original/image-20161213-1625-87yfvx.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=556&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149879/original/image-20161213-1625-87yfvx.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=556&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149879/original/image-20161213-1625-87yfvx.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=556&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters Institute</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>BuzzFeed News is less accessed, but among those with high interest in news about the environment it is as popular as Sky News and the Telegraph online. Vice News has a small reach, but online it is comparable to The Times, due to the impact of the Murdoch’s flagship’s pay-wall.</p>
<p>In the US, Huffington Post was the most popular online news destination for those highly interested in environment news. BuzzFeed reaches as many as the New York Times and the Washington Post (see Figure 2). </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149880/original/image-20161213-1594-1i66zwc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149880/original/image-20161213-1594-1i66zwc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149880/original/image-20161213-1594-1i66zwc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149880/original/image-20161213-1594-1i66zwc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149880/original/image-20161213-1594-1i66zwc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149880/original/image-20161213-1594-1i66zwc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149880/original/image-20161213-1594-1i66zwc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149880/original/image-20161213-1594-1i66zwc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters Institute</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The relative success of Huffington Post, BuzzFeed and Vice was one of the reasons we chose to analyse their climate change coverage and compare them to legacy media. All three give editorial priority to environmental issues, all three have invested heavily in different language sites or country-specific sites, and all three are “digital natives” with a strong interest in which format works on which platforms.</p>
<p>We took the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/paris-2015-climate-summit-14031">Paris climate change summit</a> of December 2015 as our case study, in part because <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1940161215612204">recent studies</a> have shown that such summits generate “networks of co-production” and a “camp feeling” where journalists often report in a very similar style and emphasis to each other. </p>
<p>An examination of more than 500 online articles by five different traditional and new media organisations in France, Germany, Spain, the UK and the US showed that the new players adopted a range of new approaches including informal tonality, “immersive” personal narration journalism, and often an emphasis on different themes.</p>
<p>Of course, HuffPo, Vice and BuzzFeed are very different to each other in terms of their business models, distribution strategies and overall editorial priorities. </p>
<h2>Countering climate silence</h2>
<p>All three did a lot of straight reporting and analysis of the summit. But we found some key differences between them and legacy media. Vice stood out for its style of “immersive” video reporting, where the reporters take their audience on a journey with them. </p>
<p>BuzzFeed used a more informal, irreverent and entertaining language, found for example in its article: “10 Adorable Animals that Climate Change is Killing Off”. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"671832880083951616"}"></div></p>
<p>Both Vice and BuzzFeed were significantly more visual in their material, relying more on photos and videos. </p>
<p>Huffington Post often had the same focus and volume of coverage as The Guardian and The New York Times. But it placed much more emphasis on a positive, solution-based approach to climate change. Also, more than half of HuffPo’s articles were blogposts, usually adopting an activist viewpoint. Vice also gave plenty of space to activist and NGO voices.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"671410633343180800"}"></div></p>
<p>We concluded that the three digital players were beneficial for public debate about climate change, as they had found new ways of covering the “old”, sometimes boring, often remote, theme of climate change. By thinking hard about what gets shared and liked on social media, they are helping to counter the “climate silence” and ensure that the issue remains interesting and relevant, particularly to younger audiences – something the legacy media would do well to take note of.
</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70357/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Painter receives funding from Google and the Digital News Initiative, the European Climate Foundation, and the Energy Foundation</span></em></p>A generation of ‘new media’ sites is challenging traditional news organisations when it comes to reporting the environment.James Painter, Head of the Journalism Fellowship Programme, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/578562016-04-22T10:04:44Z2016-04-22T10:04:44ZCould Donald Trump change journalism for the better?<p>It is unsurprising that wherever Donald Trump goes, headlines follow. But what is particularly interesting is just how many of those headlines involve the practice of journalism and journalists themselves. </p>
<p>Trump has called to <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866">“open up” libel laws.</a> He has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/us/politics/donald-trump-says-his-mocking-of-new-york-times-reporter-was-misread.html?_r=0">mocked</a> New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski’s disability. He has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/27/the-long-strange-history-of-the-donald-trump-megyn-kelly-feud/">feuded with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly</a> over questions she asked of him during a Republican presidential debate. And then there are the <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/03/12/donald-trump-rally-arrest/">accusations of violence against journalists</a> at Trump rallies.</p>
<p>Trump so challenges the norms and conventions of politics, it has caused some to express anxiety about the “<a href="http://democracyjournal.org/alcove/trump-and-the-fragility-of-democratic-culture/">corrosion of democratic culture</a>” as a result of the damage he leaves in his wake.</p>
<p>Journalists, as chroniclers of the political system, are confronted with a dilemma. How should journalists cover Trump’s candidacy? Can they – and <em>should</em> they – be objective?</p>
<p>Objectivity is a much misunderstood concept and is too often <a href="http://jou.sagepub.com/content/13/4/435.short">uncritically mythologized</a> as central to American journalistic practice. What interests me is how the pressure to be objective – and therefore disengaged from the very real impact Trump is having on the democratic process – may impede journalists’ crucial role as stewards of democracy.</p>
<h2>The Cokie Roberts case</h2>
<p>In March, longtime NPR commentator Cokie Roberts received flak from journalists, including some of her NPR colleagues, for <a href="http://cjonline.com/opinion/2016-02-26/steve-and-cokie-roberts-gop-must-stop-trump-now">coauthoring a column</a> that argued that Trump is</p>
<blockquote>
<p>one of the least qualified candidates ever to make a serious run for the presidency. If he is nominated by a major party – let alone elected – the reputation of the United States would suffer a devastating blow around the world.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119727/original/image-20160421-27019-168uowj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119727/original/image-20160421-27019-168uowj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=825&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119727/original/image-20160421-27019-168uowj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=825&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119727/original/image-20160421-27019-168uowj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=825&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119727/original/image-20160421-27019-168uowj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1037&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119727/original/image-20160421-27019-168uowj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1037&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119727/original/image-20160421-27019-168uowj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1037&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cokie Roberts.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cokie_Roberts-a.jpg">National Archives</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Roberts was roundly chastised by her colleagues and NPR executives for failing to adhere to the objectivity norm – this despite her status as a commentator. </p>
<p>Morning Edition host David Greene even expressed his disappointment with Roberts <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/14/470340825/npr-clarifies-cokie-roberts-role-after-anti-trump-column">on the air</a>, telling her that “objectivity is so fundamental to what we do” and asking, “can you blame people like me for being a little disappointed to hear you come out and take a personal position on something like this in a campaign?” </p>
<p>Roberts defended her column by describing herself as someone who is nonpartisan but “interested in government working.” Her argument was essentially an appeal to basic democratic values and the manner in which Trump is challenging them.</p>
<p>In contrast – and providing a masterful illustration of the tension between journalistic and business values – CBS head Leslie Moonves <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/les-moonves-trump-cbs-220001">recently told an audience of investors</a> that while Trump “may not be good for America” he is “damn good for CBS…The money’s rolling in.”</p>
<h2>Is your analyst my commentator?</h2>
<p>NPR’s dilemma speaks to broader shifts in the media ecosystem. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://jmq.sagepub.com/content/92/2/468">study I coauthored with Elizabeth Blanks Hindman</a> examined the responses of journalists to NPR’s decision to <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130712737">fire analyst Juan Williams</a> for comments he made on Fox News in 2010 about feeling “nervous” about sharing a plane with Muslims. </p>
<p>The responses indicated much confusion about Williams’ role, with some pondering what exactly it means to be an “analyst” as versus, say, a “reporter” or a “commentator.” Others criticized Williams for not adhering to the objectivity norm.</p>
<p>We found similar findings in <a href="http://jmq.sagepub.com/content/90/2/267.short">our study</a> of journalistic responses to the retirement of veteran White House correspondent <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/07/helen-thomas-trailblazing-reporter-dead-at-92-168818">Helen Thomas</a> following <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/04/white-house-reporter-helen-thomas-apologizes-saying-jews-hell-palestine.html">controversial remarks</a> she made that Israel should “get the hell out of Palestine.” The majority of responses we analyzed criticized Thomas for failing to be objective regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, when in fact her role at the time was as an opinion columnist.</p>
<p>We see these findings as markers of broader uncertainties about 21st-century journalism. To question objectivity is to invite the larger question of what we expect of the 21st-century journalist. Is “objectivity,” at least as presently understood, fit for purpose?</p>
<p>The fact is that Cokie Roberts is not the only one to express her unease about Trump’s candidacy. </p>
<p>The Huffington Post has taken to <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/01/huffpost-to-publish-anti-trump-kicker-with-all-trump-coverage-218345">appending an editor’s note to every article about Trump</a> informing readers that he is “a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther, and bully.” </p>
<p>The Boston Globe attracted attention for a cover that ran on the front of its Sunday edition’s Ideas section presented as an account of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/business/media/boston-globe-envisions-trump-presidency-with-mock-front-page.html?_r=0">what life would look like under President Trump</a>, with mass deportations and trade wars the new normal.</p>
<p>How, then, should journalists respond to an <a href="http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/how-authoritarianism-took-over-gop-and-allowed-emergence-emperor-trump">authoritarian</a> candidate who incites violence, fuels racial tension and fractures the social fabric by indulging the worst excesses of American bigotry? </p>
<h2>‘Journalists owe democracy their allegiance’</h2>
<p>The first defense of Roberts column is to point out that it was an opinion column written by a commentator. Roberts was, in effect, doing what she is paid to do: opine. This makes the criticism of her column all the more bizarre.</p>
<p>However, the second and more fundamental defense is to consider at a deeper level how journalists in a liberal democracy respond to phenomena that challenge the very precepts of liberal democracy.</p>
<p>This is a much-needed conversation, and one that has long been stifled by a narrow conception of objectivity. Too often objectivity, as it is practiced, emphasizes neutrality and balance at all costs. This can be seen, for example, in coverage of the human impact on <a href="http://www.cjr.org/essay/the_danger_of_fair_and_balance.php">climate change</a> as a question still being debated when an overwhelming majority of scientists believe there is unassailable evidence that it is a fact that needs to be dealt with. </p>
<p>This kind of objectivity positions the journalist as a “morally disengaged” communicator possessing, as <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/j6075/edit/readings/glasser.html">the ethicist Ted Glasser argues</a>, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>neither the need nor the opportunity to develop a critical perspective from which to assess the events, the issues, and the personalities he or she is assigned to cover.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In “<a href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/jbp/jlp/2008/00000007/00000001/art00007">The Limits of Objective Reporting</a>,” the philosopher Raphael Cohen-Almagor argues that </p>
<blockquote>
<p>subjectivity is preferable to objectivity when the media cover illiberal and anti-democratic phenomena.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Cohen-Almagor argues – and I concur – that when confronted with issues that challenge the basic values of liberal democracy itself, journalists are called to set aside moral neutrality. </p>
<p>From this perspective, journalism ought to be nonpartisan in party terms but wholly on the side of democracy, good governance and the protection of people’s rights and civil liberties.</p>
<p>As Cohen-Almagor says, journalists </p>
<blockquote>
<p>live within the democratic realm and owe democracy their allegiance. Free speech and free journalism exist because democracy makes them possible.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is not so unusual an idea, and ought not be controversial. Indeed, we don’t need to go that far back into journalism history to find examples of it. </p>
<p>One of the reasons <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1872668">Edward R. Murrow is regarded as one of the finest American journalists</a> is because of his opposition to the demagoguery of Joseph McCarthy, devoting an episode of “See It Now” to a methodical exposition of McCarthy’s smears and deceits.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-YOIueFbG4g?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Murrow recognized the threat that McCarthy (and McCarthyism) posed to the fabric of American democracy and acted with conviction. Where is today’s Edward R. Murrow?</p>
<p>Trump is testing the boundaries of the political system. His platform and proclamations, and the manner in which he articulates them, pose such a challenge to regular order that it becomes necessary to ask if the norms of political coverage ought to be rethought. </p>
<p>Perhaps a new journalistic vocabulary is necessary. Trump’s candidacy may provide just the occasion for such a rethink.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57856/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ryan J. Thomas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Trump’s campaign challenges the conventions of politics and liberal democracy. So maybe the time has come to question how journalists practice objectivity.Ryan J. Thomas, Assistant Professor, Journalism Studies, University of Missouri-ColumbiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/492042015-10-22T19:10:24Z2015-10-22T19:10:24ZWhy HuffPo and other ‘new’ media journalists are choosing unions<p>Newsroom unions are back. In newly found solidarity, journalists in American digital newsrooms are getting organised. As “new” digital news outlets are turning “old” - or rather maturing and delivering profits, it’s not surprising journalists are demanding better pay and working conditions, and greater transparency from their management.</p>
<p>Journalists at the Huffington Post in the US are the latest in talks to unionise, and the company’s founder says she is fine with it. <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/02/media/arianna-huffington-huffington-post-union/">Arianna Huffington,</a> who sold her media outlet to AOL in 2011, supports unionisation of the HuffPo workforce. In a statement to CNNMoney she said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“we fully support our newsroom employees’ right to discuss unionising and will embrace whatever decision they make on this issue.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Not all the media bosses are as supportive. For example, BuzzFeed’s management is less keen to see its workers get organised. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/14/buzzfeed-union-jonah-peretti">Chief executive Jonah Peretti</a> has warned the company’s workers to stay out of labour unions, arguing workers are not working “on an assembly line” and therefore don’t need the protection provided by unions. Peretti believes unions are not right for such “a flexible, dynamic company” as BuzzFeed. </p>
<p>Al Jazeera America’s management has also been less keen to see its workers get organised, and it is contesting the rights of nine of its editors and team leaders to have union representation. However, the rest of the company’s news workers have opted to join NewsGuild of New York. <a href="http://www.nyguild.org/newsreader/items/release-al-jazeera-america-digital-journalists-vote-overwhelmingly-to-join-the-newsguild-of-ny.html#sthash.mclCpn6v.dpuf">Al Jazeera America’s</a> journalists say they “deserve an environment that exemplifies the best practices of a modern, humane workplace and values diversity, equality and fairness”.</p>
<p>HuffPo is expected to follow the example set by AJAM, Gawker, The Guardian America, Salon and Vice. According to The Washington Post, The Newspaper Guild has <a href="http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/377175/al-jazeera-america-digital-workers-vote-to-go-union/">26,000 members in the US</a>, and The Communications Workers of America 600,000 members.</p>
<p>The committee organising <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/huffington-post-union-talks_5614726ce4b021e856d2cfd6">The HuffPo workers</a> has pencilled a list of reasons to join The Newspaper Guild, and these include pay, job responsibilities, and editorial decisions. The committee says the “dramatic changes to employees’ workload and responsibilities, made without employee input, hinder our ability to produce our best work”.</p>
<p>New digital news outlets have produced “almost 5,000 full-time jobs,”
according to the <a href="http://www.journalism.org/2014/03/26/the-growth-in-digital-reporting/">State of the News Media 2014 </a>report. It says as these media outlets are innovating, they’re “hiring people with skills and voices ‘being nurtured online’”. This means younger, digitally native news workers.</p>
<h2>Business model based on exploitation</h2>
<p>When the Huffington Post launched in Australia in partnership with Fairfax in August, it was immediately <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/18/huffington-post-australia-launches-with-julie-bishop-blogs-and-biscuits">thrown into controversy</a> for assembling “a team of bloggers, who somewhat controversially agree to write unpaid in return for exposure to the site’s vast global audience”.</p>
<p>Australian media commentator Dee Madigan, <a href="http://mumbrella.com.au/dee-madigan-slams-unsolicited-request-to-blog-for-free-for-huffington-post-as-insulting-306109">asked to write for the site for free</a>, said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“if you don’t value your work and you don’t say no, you will get exploited. They just seem to think you can scribble out words and it doesn’t take time.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>HuffPo has “more than 100,000 bloggers around the world who contribute to the site for free”. Joining unions may aid workers in digital newsrooms, but what about these free contributors? </p>
<p>HuffPo’s business model is based on free labour, or rather exploitation, as author Christian Fuchs puts it. Fuchs argues media companies such as HuffPo and Facebook exploit their users which produce free content and data for their sites. However, they do so on a voluntary basis. Fuchs call these content providers <a href="http://fuchs.uti.at/tag/internet-prosumer-commodity/">“prosumers”</a> who are exploited for profit, with their content commodified by being sold to third parties such as advertisers. </p>
<h2>Editorial freedom</h2>
<p>Journalists are also joining unions as they feel their editorial independence is compromised. As the HuffPo organising committee put it, journalists want a formal commitment from their management for editorial freedom, so that “institutions can’t use their influence to dictate our coverage or squash stories that are unflattering”. </p>
<p>Gawker is another media outlet where issues of editorial freedom have caused staff problems, with <a href="http://gawker.com/tommy-craggs-and-max-read-are-resigning-from-gawker-1719002144">two editors resigning</a> after the company’s management decided to pull a controversial story from its website. </p>
<p>In their resignation letter, the editors said “non-editorial business executives were given a vote in the decision to remove it,” and therefore editorial independence was compromised. The episode turned “Gawker’s claim to be the world’s largest independent media company into, essentially, a joke,” they said.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49204/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Merja Myllylahti does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>They employ thousands and are highly commercial, and increasingly their staff are turning to unions.Merja Myllylahti, Lecturer, Auckland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/463202015-08-27T23:46:46Z2015-08-27T23:46:46ZWhen journalists write for free it hurts our democracy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93000/original/image-20150826-16707-vrhbze.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">We all like free, but who really pays?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image sourced from Shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It might seem like good business sense when new media proprietors decide not to pay their writers, but the cost is adding up for those of us who value a healthy democracy.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/huffington-post-success-will-rely-on-fresh-voices-45959">arrival in Australia of Huffington Post</a>, which built a big part of its empire on using unpaid bloggers to tell the “inside story”, brought a brief outcry on social media using the hashtag #paythewriters. </p>
<p>To be honest it was more like a whimper from an already underpaid and undervalued part of society. HuffPo Australia is, after all, just one in a long line of successful international and local news publications which either pay nothing or pay little for the work of some wordsmiths. They pay curators, but not those who actually produce the work.</p>
<p>There are three players in this tragic comedy: the proprietors of the non-paying media outlets who get rich off the wealth of a creative class; the writers who often cling to romantic ideals about what journalism is and deny the realities of a business model; and finally the tragic readers who are left with articles written by those with vested interests.</p>
<p>It is a sad reality that like the iron ore price, the bottom has fallen out of the freelance market. Just a decade ago a trained and experienced journalist could command $1 a word if they were producing good words for a business publication. The invoices would be paid on time and the work would often be commissioned in advance. It might still be difficult to pay the mortgage, but it could be done for those with certain skills. </p>
<p>But even 10 years ago business writers were a special lot. They were paid well. Travel writers could expect little more than 25 cents a word, sports writers found themselves with unpaid match reports or ghost writing for footy heroes, and music writers rarely got a cent. Poets and creative writers could only muster a byline. Today many freelancers earn just 5 cents a word, if that. Often they get little more than “exposure”. </p>
<p>Jennifer Mills wrote in a <a href="https://overland.org.au/2013/03/pay-the-writers/">recent article</a> in Overland: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“A major newspaper emails me via a literary journal to ask if they can publish one of my stories. I am afraid that in these straitened times all we could offer you in exchange for publication rights to the short story would be a quid pro quo arrangement in terms of publicity. They’re waving ‘exposure’ at me like it’s a cheque.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Less journalism, more commentary</h2>
<p>The problem is, the ease of producing the written word in the digital age has created a buyers’ market. No longer are journalists valued for their important skills of being able to analyse, synthesise and create understandable copy that puts pressure on people in power. Journalists are increasingly considered hobbyists who can work another job and doing their writing on the weekend. It’s rather like the Uber model of journalism, where people only take it up for pocket money that supplements another income. You can almost hear them saying: “I’ll just take my journalism out for a spin this weekend and see if I can raise a bit of spare cash.”</p>
<p>The attitude of the proprietors has created a fertile ground for those of us (including academics) who are paid to write, and or propagate certain ideas or ideals. The list includes those who write for The Conversation, appear daily in our newspapers, on our televisions screens, the Institute of Public Affairs, the Grattan Institute, the Lowy Institute, Per Capita, the big four accounting firms, the high profile lawyers, and of course politicians of all persuasions who have staff (including former journalists) who can write something for them. I haven’t even mentioned the public relations firms that are paid to create news-like reports which can be effortlessly eased into publications. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/feb/04/comment.pressandpublishing">Nick Davies</a> was among those exposed with PRs some years back with his book, Flat Earth News. </p>
<p>Sadly, this model excludes people who are not of independent means – often those who are the most vulnerable in our society: the homeless; the refugees; the women; and the less educated. Once upon a time their stories were told by staff journalists who didn’t need to worry about paying the rent. </p>
<p>Proprietors need to be held to account, but writers also need to fight back. The appropriate professional body the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance has put a lot of effort into trying to help, but writers seem unable or unwilling to organise. Some cling to their lofty ideas and align themselves to the myth of the struggling writer even though there is no nice reality in being down and out in Paris, London or Melbourne. </p>
<p>No one can pay the rent by writing a news story on a napkin. Others often undercut each other. For those who <a href="http://mediamusings.dsc.rmit.edu.au/2012/10/12/how-not-to-get-a-job/">try to hold out to be paid</a> for their time, their legal expertise, their equipment, their skill, there is always someone else who is willing to do it for less, or do it for free. Just like those Uber drivers. </p>
<p>There are a few publications that do pay well, mostly related to thriving business or sex industries. As a society we need to find a way to support journalists and publications that are not aligned to vested business interests or pornography. That means paying the online subscription to news organisations that uphold the values of independent journalism, even if you no longer hear the thud of a newspaper on the front lawn. A full list of who pays the writers in Australia is being collated on <a href="http://heypayup.tumblr.com/">this tumblr</a>, set up by author Jennifer Mills. </p>
<p>For those of us who care about journalism and its role in keeping an eye on people in power – both political and business – we need to support and donate to news organisations and cooperatives that pay the writers and maintain an independent charter. As a society we need to act more philanthropically by donating funds to those who support this kind of journalism. </p>
<p>Right now, our media tragic comedy ends with the spotlight firmly back on the audience. It is up to us to turn it around, for the sake of democracy. We can do it together, by paying for what we read.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46320/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexandra Wake spent three years as a senior ministerial media advisor.</span></em></p>While some are being given new platforms to express their views, the decline of paid journalism is shutting others out.Alexandra Wake, Lecturer, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/459592015-08-18T02:24:42Z2015-08-18T02:24:42ZHuffington Post success will rely on fresh voices<p>The doomsayers of Australian journalism will have to hold their tongues this week as the Huffington Post breathes some fresh life into the local media scene.</p>
<p>Launched in Australia today, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/">HuffPo,</a> as it’s affectionately called by journalists, joins a growing number of international news organisations which have found a new audience – and it hopes advertisers - in Australia.</p>
<p>The opening of HuffPo Australia’s doors (temporarily in the old Fox offices at Darling Harbour) is indeed welcome news for the 28 or so local staff who have been hired by the global journalism player which has already extended its reach to 13 countries.</p>
<p>The global takeover isn’t a bad effort from the team behind editor-in-chief <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/">Arianna Huffington</a> who only established the online site in 2005 as an alternative left wing (Americans would say “liberal”) outlet and alternative to news aggregators.</p>
<p>The Huffington Post deal in Australia is interesting, with a 49% stake in the venture held by Fairfax Media. The commercial details of the arrangement haven’t been publicised, but some have suggested Fairfax fought hard for the deal as a way of “keeping its friends close and its enemies even closer”.</p>
<p>There are however fears from a few media watchers that HuffPo will cut Fairfax’s audiences which are already feeling the pinch from locally grown digital sites such as Crikey, The Conversation, New Matilda and Mumbrella as well as the relatively new international players, <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-guardian-too-local-for-australian-lefties-14664">The Guardian,</a> the Daily Mail, and BuzzFeed. </p>
<p>The Huffington Post’s chief executive in the US Jimmy Maymann however is buoyant about the deal, which mirrors that in other international ventures. </p>
<p>He told the <a href="http://www.afr.com/business/media-and-marketing/publishing/arianna-huffington-on-huffington-posts-australian-venture-20150208-1393x8">Australian Financial Review</a> earlier in the year: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Our ability to partner with established local players has been critical to the success of our rapid international expansion over the past two years. We have created a very effective repeatable model that has enabled us to enter new markets and establish strong positions very quickly.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>HuffPo can credibly claim to be an international news organisation, having won a Pulitzer Prize in 2012. It boasts 214 million unique visitors each month, and there is no reason to believe it will not achieve its stated target of becoming a top-five publisher in Australia in three to five years.</p>
<p>HuffPo Australia boasts a strong team with good local connections. The chief executive Chris Janz comes lately from blog publisher Allure Media, which was bought by Fairfax in 2012, and the editor-in-chief <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/tory-maguire-appointed-editor-in-chief-of-the-huffington-post-australia/story-e6frg996-1227328363248">Tory Maguire</a> brings a long News Corp pedigree.</p>
<p>Also in the news crew is Canberra-based political editor Karen Barlow, one of the many talented journalists axed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in its cull of international services, a former executive producer of video at AAP Tom Compagnoni, and a former assistant Daily Mail editor Chris Paine. The list of highly regarded journalism hires goes on, but features many who have either jumped or been pushed out by the seismic change in the country’s newspaper landscape.</p>
<p>So while the local industry is no doubt delighted that high calibre journalists are finding work with the Australian edition of HuffPo – the one question readers should be asking is will the Huffington Post bring them anything different to the already established media outlets. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92195/original/image-20150818-5121-b5eojm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92195/original/image-20150818-5121-b5eojm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92195/original/image-20150818-5121-b5eojm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92195/original/image-20150818-5121-b5eojm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92195/original/image-20150818-5121-b5eojm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92195/original/image-20150818-5121-b5eojm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92195/original/image-20150818-5121-b5eojm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Getting writers to blog for free has been a critical part of the Huffington Post’s strategy in each market.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Neville Hobson/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Point of difference?</h2>
<p>Certainly HuffPo gains much by linking its brand to the high standard of journalism that many Fairfax reporters demonstrate. Look for example at the coverage of <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/shell-pumped-20-billion-a-year-from-motorists-but-paid-no-company-tax-20150804-gir4bs">tax avoidance</a> by multinationals operating in Australia, or the revelations and reporting of Australia’s scandal ridden <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/adele-ferguson-receives-two-walkley-award-nominations-for-financial-planning-scandal-reports-20141021-119c9i.html">financial services sector</a>.</p>
<p>If HuffPo Australia champions more of this reporting, and helps grow advertising revenue for both it and Fairfax, then that will auger well for all. But The Huffington Post has built much of its reputation on providing a space for bloggers, for insiders, to write about their passions. </p>
<p>HuffPo does not restrict itself to the normal crew of footy commentators, political analysts and think tank spruikers. HuffPo asks everyone to write. And it is this network of real-time bloggers in Australia that could be the making of the site, even if it is the use of such unpaid writers that has caused the organisation the most <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/07/16/huffpo-asks-aussie-writer-to-blog-for-free/">criticism at home</a> and <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/01/opinion/la-oe-walker-huffington-post-strike-20110401">abroad</a>. Although to be truthful, there are many sites in Australia and internationally who do not pay writers, however good they maybe, including The Conversation.</p>
<p>What really matters is whether or not HuffPo can attract new and emerging thinkers who can write, or if they will lean on the same-old crew who pop up on <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/">QandA </a>on a Monday night.</p>
<p>It’s a now a truism that the internet provides us with what it thinks we want to know, not what we need to know. As readers, we hope the paid Australian curators at HuffPo can help change that adage. If they can, it might be enough to save Fairfax.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45959/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexandra Wake does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In other markets the Huffington Post doesn’t just rely on the usual suspects to write, and it’s this that will make or break it in Australia.Alexandra Wake, Lecturer, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/459602015-08-17T20:27:33Z2015-08-17T20:27:33ZHuffington Post is coming – but will Australians care?<p>The past few years have been positively revolutionary for the Australian news landscape. From a static and highly concentrated media market, dominated by News Corporation, Fairfax, and the ABC, new players have gradually entered the market, and the next new entry lumbering up to the starting blocks is the Australian version of The Huffington Post.</p>
<p>Emerging from founder Arianna Huffington’s earlier forays into political blogging in the mid-2000s, HuffPo has become a major political voice in the United States, and has recently expanded into a number of global markets, with over a dozen localised editions now available. Huffington Post Australia, in partnership with Fairfax Media, is slated to launch on Wednesday, August 19.</p>
<p>Does Huffington Post Australia stand a chance of gaining a foothold in the increasingly crowded Australian news and commentary market? The fate of some of the other recent additions to the media mix may provide a useful guide here. </p>
<p>Comprehensive data on site visits collected by Experian Hitwise shows a range of crucial trends: first, with the general shift towards online news consumption, the total number of site visits to the leading news sites has been trending strongly upwards – from an average of just under 6 million visits per week during 2013, leader news.com.au has grown to over 13 million weekly visits since June 2015, for example. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92012/original/image-20150817-5085-12oi8lf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92012/original/image-20150817-5085-12oi8lf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92012/original/image-20150817-5085-12oi8lf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92012/original/image-20150817-5085-12oi8lf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92012/original/image-20150817-5085-12oi8lf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92012/original/image-20150817-5085-12oi8lf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92012/original/image-20150817-5085-12oi8lf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92012/original/image-20150817-5085-12oi8lf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Total visits to selected Australian news and opinion sites, 2013-15.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Data courtesy of Experian Marketing Services' Hitwise.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Second, while the shape of the market has long remained stable, with news.com.au, the Sydney Morning Herald, and nineMSN (now 9 News) fairly evenly matched, since early 2014 the fortunes of the market leaders have diverged. Having embraced a more populist, tabloid content strategy, news.com.au has established itself as the clear market leader, while the SMH’s growth has merely followed the overall trend, and 9 News has stagnated both before and after its rebranding.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the entrance of two UK-based news organisations into the local market has affected the status quo considerably. The Guardian and the Daily Mail had already been reasonably popular with Australian audiences well before their local spin-offs were announced and launched, but their dedicated domestic coverage has been able to boost their appeal considerably.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92013/original/image-20150817-5083-1srrq20.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92013/original/image-20150817-5083-1srrq20.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92013/original/image-20150817-5083-1srrq20.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92013/original/image-20150817-5083-1srrq20.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92013/original/image-20150817-5083-1srrq20.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92013/original/image-20150817-5083-1srrq20.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92013/original/image-20150817-5083-1srrq20.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92013/original/image-20150817-5083-1srrq20.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Total visits to selected Australian news and opinion sites, 2013-15 - Daily Mail Australia and Guardian Australia highlighted.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Data courtesy of Experian Marketing Services' Hitwise.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Growth in visits to Daily Mail Australia has been especially pronounced, from a weekly average of just over 2 million in 2013 to nearly 8 million visits per week since June 2015 – well above the average growth trend. The trajectory shows a clear bump in readership since the transition to dedicated Australian content in May 2014, and since the start of 2015 Daily Mail Australia has been clearly established as the third most popular Australian news site. </p>
<p>Even before its Australian launch, in fact, Daily Mail was easily more popular with Australian internet users than local tabloids Herald-Sun or Daily Telegraph.</p>
<p>Guardian Australia’s progress has been somewhat slower, building from a lower base. Even after its official launch in May 2013, the site struggled to break through the barrier of 1 million visits per week, until the 2013 federal election campaign provided it with the opportunity to establish a stronger profile as a new space for quality political coverage; since June 2015, the site has averaged some 3.7 million visits per week, and sits comfortably in the top ten of Australian news sites.</p>
<p>Buzzfeed’s official launch on 31 January 2014 did cause at least a momentary spike in visits, and marks the point at which the site becomes more strongly competitive in the Australian media landscape. Long running neck-and-neck with Guardian Australia and the international edition of Huffington Post, during the remainder of 2014 Buzzfeed Australia gradually pulls ahead of both sites. It is now established as a popular site in Australia, rivalling 9 News, The Age, and ABC News: it has attracted an average of nearly 5 million visits per week since June 2015.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92014/original/image-20150817-5110-6yt9wz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92014/original/image-20150817-5110-6yt9wz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92014/original/image-20150817-5110-6yt9wz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92014/original/image-20150817-5110-6yt9wz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92014/original/image-20150817-5110-6yt9wz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92014/original/image-20150817-5110-6yt9wz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92014/original/image-20150817-5110-6yt9wz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92014/original/image-20150817-5110-6yt9wz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Total visits to selected Australian news and opinion sites, 2013-15 - Buzzfeed and Huffington Post highlighted.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Data courtesy of Experian Marketing Services' Hitwise.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Ahead of its Australian launch, the international edition of the Huffington Post remains a considerably more niche publication – yet still ranking ahead of more established Australian titles such as The Australian (whose partial paywall may affect visitor numbers, however) or the Canberra Times. Notably, HuffPo’s Australian visitor numbers have been trending downwards over the past year, averaging some 1.7 million visits per week since June 2015.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see whether the launch of an Australian edition of the Huffington Post can arrest or even reverse this decline. The performance of other recent entrants into the Australian online news and commentary market has clearly shown that such sites can establish themselves as viable and even leading players in the media landscape. However, the greatest successes have been reserved for comparatively populist and tabloid outlets like Daily Mail Australia and Buzzfeed Australia.</p>
<p>By contrast, Guardian Australia’s achievements to date have been more limited. Its parent organisation is recognised as a globally leading, quality news brand, whose closest Australian equivalents are perhaps the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. However, in spite of its undoubted contributions to Australian political journalism, Guardian Australia has yet to even come close to rivalling the visitor numbers attracted by these Fairfax titles’ sites.</p>
<p>Huffington Post, in turn, caters to a considerably more narrow audience. By boosting its coverage of Australian politics and current affairs, it should be able to at least maintain the established Australian audience for its international edition, which would leave it placed above titles such as The Australian in total weekly visits. </p>
<p>It seems unlikely, though, that it could catch up again with a site like Guardian Australia – whose numbers it matched, one year ago – in the immediate future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45960/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This research is supported by the ARC Future Fellowship project “Understanding Intermedia Information Flows in the Australian Online Public Sphere”.</span></em></p>Huffington Post Australia launches this week - but has it left its run too late?Axel Bruns, Professor, Creative Industries, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/373542015-02-10T03:55:54Z2015-02-10T03:55:54ZHuffPo meets Fairfax and you won’t believe what happens next<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71449/original/image-20150209-24651-e7jlzf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Fairfax sees Huffington Post's left-leaning, populist approach as a good fit.</span> </figcaption></figure><p>This week’s announcement that Fairfax had acquired a 49% partnership stake in Huffington Post Australia means yet another new entrant into the Australian online media landscape. </p>
<p>An Australian edition of Huffington Post has been mooted for some time now, but has lagged behind other international entrants such as <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/au">The Guardian Australia</a> (backed by Graeme Wood) and <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/auhome/index.html">Daily Mail Online Australia</a>, which have quickly attracted sizable readerships (as has domestic entrant, The Conversation).</p>
<p>Founded by Arianna Huffington and others (including the conservative Andrew Breitbart) in 2005, the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/">Huffington Post</a> (often referred to as HuffPo) quickly became a leading US news aggregation and blog hosting site, before being sold to AOL in 2011 for US$315 million. (Founder Huffington remains the president and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post Media Group.) </p>
<p>It is known for its socially liberal, centre-left politics, and for its sharp content segmentation strategies that can draw together very diverse readerships. For instance, the site carries 50 different sections ranging from politics to crime, gay voices to religion, college and tech, celebrity news, parents, divorce and “GPS for the soul”. In contrast to a conventional newspaper, one can subscribe to a HuffPo section and be largely unaware of what exists on the rest of the site. </p>
<p>Australia’s predominantly English language readership, combined with a high level of familiarity with US news content, mean the risks for HuffPo Australia are low. It intends to hire 12 journalists in the first instance, so start-up costs are also modest.</p>
<p>In an <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/why-arianna-huffington-is-bringing-huffington-post-to-australia-20150209-139agb.html">un-bylined Q&A, oddly badged as an ‘exclusive’</a> carried on Fairfax websites, Huffington spoke of HuffPo’s “unique product” and said she expected to be
“to build a top-five player in the category in three to five years”.</p>
<p>For Fairfax, it provides an investment likely to achieve a relatively quick payoff, at a time when its long-established mastheads such as The Age, Sydney Morning Herald and Australian Financial Review (AFR) continue to face strong cost pressures as well as online competition from the new players. It also allows for some low-cost content sharing - although this will probably be in the “pop culture” areas of entertainment and celebrity news. </p>
<p>This is likely to cause editorial angst for those within Fairfax; however, the move acknowledges that the media landscape is now two relatively distinct segments. </p>
<p>The one associated with the print-based mastheads revolves around well-established journalistic conventions and “star” journalists, and tends to skew towards an older readership, or at least those who have some experience of the newspaper in its print form. </p>
<p>The second gets almost all of its news online, and gravitates towards emergent sites such as Buzzfeed, Gawker, Junkee, Vice and HuffPo. This readership is younger, expects news in different formats – these sites are far more visually driven than their newspaper-driven equivalents – and does not for the most part expect to know who wrote the story they are reading. They are also more likely to be getting free content via social media, at a time when Fairfax, News and others are looking to build their paying subscriber base. </p>
<p>These readerships overlap considerably. Australian Buzzfeed readers are also likely to read the ABC Online or The Guardian, for instance. It is also not a divide between “real news” and “newstainment”: sites such as Vice carry major long-form news stories and engage in investigative reporting. </p>
<p>But there are differences in how they may tell the same story. It would be hard, for instance, to imagine a story on federal politics by Peter Hartcher or Mark Kenny having the headline “<a href="http://www.vice.com/en_au/read/federal-politics-2015-the-fuck-just-happened">Federal Politics 2015: The Fuck Just Happened</a>?”</p>
<p>The question remains whether this partnership might lead to a cannibalisation of Fairfax’s own sites, which are already an often uneasy mix of serious news and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/homestyle/six-simple-ways-to-declutter-your-kitchen-20150209-1360qk.html">lighter content</a>. </p>
<p>Also hanging over HuffPo is past criticism that it has operated as a “content farm” that failed to adequately compensate their writers. In the US, the National Writers Union and Newspaper Guild promoted a <a href="http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/150456/national-writers-union-drops-huffington-post-boycott/">boycott of the site</a> among its members in 2011, as part of the PayTheWriter! Campaign, seeking to establish fair pay rates for freelance journalists working for the Huffington Post and other online publications. </p>
<p>Writer and activist <a href="http://www.workinglife.org/">Jonathan Tasini</a> unsuccessfully pursued a lawsuit on behalf of 9000 bloggers against HuffPo, alleging the value the site attracted in its sale to AOL had come from the unpaid contributions of various writers. </p>
<p>The case was <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/30/us-aol-huffingtonpost-bloggers-idUSBRE82T17L20120330">dismissed by the District Court</a> on the – somewhat ominous – grounds that the writers had freely volunteered their services to the site, and that publication had been their reward in lieu of payment. For journalists already anxious about erosion of their wages and conditions as the company restructures its core publications and cuts freelance budgets, this may be a matter of some concern.</p>
<p>But developing a stake in Huffington Post Australia may have benefits for readers of Fairfax’s more established mastheads. Online sites such as <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/">theage.com.au</a> and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/">smh.com.au</a> have been criticised for their mix of the forms of quality journalism long associated with their brand identities and material that is more obviously “clickbait”. </p>
<p>It may be that its investment in Huffington Post Australia will allow for a clearer segmentation of its own content to cater for diverse readerships.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37354/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Terry Flew does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>This week’s announcement that Fairfax had acquired a 49% partnership stake in Huffington Post Australia means yet another new entrant into the Australian online media landscape. An Australian edition of…Terry Flew, Professor of Media and Communications, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/247962014-03-30T19:47:13Z2014-03-30T19:47:13ZUsing real names is just one way of cleaning up online comments<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44992/original/rw2bqbny-1395979941.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C22%2C3760%2C2358&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Civil unrest: anonymous comments are being banned from some popular websites - but does it chase away the trolls? </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Every day, millions of internet users leave comments on web sites and on social networks covering any topic imaginable. At its very best, commenting fosters a social community of people sharing an interest. The community can work to create new knowledge, expand and explain, bring different perspectives or just be supportive and encouraging. </p>
<p>At its worst however, commenting can sink to depths of excoriating and vile invective. It can simply provide yet another opportunity for different groups to hurl abuse at one another and cement even further their respective entrenched positions.</p>
<h2>To ban comments or not?</h2>
<p>The average commenting community usually falls somewhere in between and for some sites, this has been sufficient incentive for getting rid of comments altogether. The online magazine Popular Science decided to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/science/comment-ban-sets-off-debate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">ban comments</a>, quoting <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/opinion/sunday/this-story-stinks.html?_r=0">research</a> that showed that rude comments increased the likelihood of readers questioning the content of the article. </p>
<p>In this case, uncivil comments caused some people to evaluate nanotechnology as being more risky than readers who had been exposed to only civil comments. The editors of Popular Science felt that this distorted unreasonably and arbitrarily the science being presented in their articles and felt justified in taking the step of banning comments altogether.</p>
<p>Incivility may have effects on our attitudes to the content that is being commented upon, but in the case of YouTube, comments had simply become generally <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5928558/lets-see-how-well-youtubes-real-name-comment-policy-is-working">unpleasant</a>. In an attempt to deal with this, Google has progressively enforced a “real name” policy including having to use a Google+ account in order to comment.</p>
<p>The idea that anonymity increases bad behaviour on forums is one that is supported by research. Through a process of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect">online disinhibition</a>, behaviour tends to be more uncivil and groups become <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563206001221">more polarised</a> when individuals are anonymous.</p>
<h2>Insisting on real names</h2>
<p>Contrasting this is the <a href="http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/54561/1/Ian%20Rowe%20democraticaudit.com-Online_political_discussions_tend_to_be_less.pdf">observation</a> that uncivil comments were found to be more prevalent on the online version of the Washington Post, where commenters can be anonymous, as compared to its Facebook version. Interestingly however, where rudeness did occur in both environments, on the online version of the Washington Post, the incivility was directed at other participants, compared to Facebook where it was directed to political figures and others not directly involved in the commentary.</p>
<p>This observation has been taken up by the Huffington Post, which despite employing comment moderators, has observed the increase of trolling, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer">griefing</a> and generally bad behaviour over recent years. Next month, it will <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/22/tech/web/huffington-post-anonymous-comments/">introduce</a> the requirement for commenters to use their real names. </p>
<p>How exactly they will do this is unclear. Relying on Facebook or Google+ accounts is one way. This assumes these services have an effective means of ensuring their own users are using their real names. However, we know that this is not really the case as it is still possible to set up false names on any service at present.</p>
<p>The other question is whether this will effectively stop bad behaviour. <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5928558/lets-see-how-well-youtubes-real-name-comment-policy-is-working">YouTube’s</a> experience indicates real names hasn’t eradicated the torrid comments. This may be in part because on a service like YouTube, there are so many people commenting that a real name operates in the same way as a pseudonym anyway. If you expect nobody to know who you are in a social group, there would not be any of the social norming effects moderating behaviour. </p>
<h2>Community, not customers</h2>
<p>Certainly when the articles are on emotive subjects and the problem becomes one of warring factions, real names are a non-issue because being identified ceases to become an inhibitor. Declaring your allegiance to the group is part of the motivation of engaging in the argument (or fight).</p>
<p>Reducing the problems of commenting down to a single factor of identity versus anonymity is missing the point. As with all relationships and especially ones encompassed in social groups, the situation is far more complicated.</p>
<p>Having a commenting community on a site is much more about the social network aspects of that community than it is about simply engaging customers. In order to have an effective community which is organised around an interest, it largely falls to the site owners to try and cultivate that community.</p>
<p>Turning to the social sciences for an understanding on how to build effective online communities, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Building-Successful-Online-Communities-Evidence-Based/dp/0262016575">researchers</a> have outlined a slew of evidence-based design features that can be used to build and regulate those communities. These design suggestions are based on normalising behaviour to achieve a constructive, informative and civil conversation.</p>
<h2>What works?</h2>
<p>Some of these suggestions may actually surprise comment moderators currently dealing with the task of shaping an online community. For example, some sites leave a trace of comments that were removed by moderation. This works as what is called a “descriptive norm”, an example of how people should behave. But research has shown that if there are too many of these traces, they can actually illicit even more bad behaviour.</p>
<p>Another suggestion is that commenters that display bad behaviour are far more likely to moderate that behaviour if they are given warnings and face-saving ways of amending their behaviour.</p>
<p>Although anonymity and identity are one aspect of the overall healthy functioning of an online community, they are only a small part and like all relationships, the truth is that “it’s complicated”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24796/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Glance does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Every day, millions of internet users leave comments on web sites and on social networks covering any topic imaginable. At its very best, commenting fosters a social community of people sharing an interest…David Glance, Director of Innovation, Faculty of Arts, Director of Centre for Software Practice, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.