When news isn't news

Modern news apps aren’t as ground-breaking as Google and Apple might think

At I/O 2018, Google announced they are relaunching their news app so it brings users a customised feed of stories based on their interests and what they've previously read. In short, this is Google's take on Apple News. These news apps, which are basically glorified RSS feeds, are well-intentioned however ultimately problematic. Technology promised to eliminate some of the issues associated with old media, however I fear that they've only made them worse.

The main issue is that letting an algorithm pick news for you based on interests you've told it and your reading history is not a good way to digest news. Google has proved their algorithms for generating content don't really work – as demonstrated by the YouTube Trending page where fake news, violent videos, and copyrighted material often surfaces to the top. To be fair, this isn't a problem limited to Google. Facebook makes a hash of providing news too. They spent the whole of 2016 doing nothing about the unchecked saturation of fake news circulating around their platform.

Secondly, displaying stories based on previous reads does not mean they are the pieces you should be digesting. Google says, through “reinforced learning,” the app will learn what topics and publishers you like. Apparently "the more you use it, the better it gets." However most people are drawn in by clickbait and non-stories with glorified thumbnails. Fall for them three or four times and presumably this means Google will start thinking that you have an appetite for pointless listicles and trivial news, so you will be shown more.

Thankfully, there is a simple fix to these problems: editors.

Call me old fashioned but what is wrong with allowing actual human beings to decide what are the most important issues of the day and giving stories some gravitas by putting them in the public eye? This would serve readers better too as it would diversify the topics that appear in the feed.

The obvious opposition to this idea is the fact that editors have biases. Of course they do. But, as do algorithms. It has been proved numerous times over the past decade that algorithms reflect the people who write them so they're not truly impartial either. At least with a group of editors, there is someone to hold accountable if you don't think the news is neutral.

In a society where there is now a large need for views to be challenged and news not to simply reinforce a person’s 'confirmation bias', Google News is doing little to address the challenges. In an ideal world, Coffee House blogs from The Spectator should be put in front of liberals and ‘Comment is Free’ think-pieces from The Guardian should be exposed to conservatives. Instead, it would appear that Google is keener to associate their news efforts with buzzwords like 'machine learning' and 'AI' in order to satisfy investors - rather than creating an information tool that would benefit society.

This is nothing new though. It's unlikely that someone on the political left would go out and buy The Daily Mail or someone on the right The Observer. However, technology has the ability to bring people more balanced news and to expose people to analysis that they might not agree with. Moreover, the companies which are providing platforms for news (Google, Apple and Facebook) have a duty not just to host the content but to prioritise the content which is actually factually correct. Simple as it may sound, this is something an algorithm currently struggles to do.

In Google's defence, they do try and partly address this problem. The news app has a tab called 'Headlines' which Google claims will help readers "understand the full story." On Stage at I/O, Trystan Upstill said, "Today, it takes a lot of work a lot of work to broaden your point of view and understand a story in depth. With Google News we set out to make that effortless." Cut through the waffle and fundamentally this is just a feed of top stories from a wide variety of trusted sources.

Inside of this, they’ve created a 'Full Coverage' feature which will allow users to see how a story is being covered from a variety of sources - including fact checking sites. Google says that everyone will see the same content in Full Coverage. "It’s an unfiltered view of events from a range of trusted news sources."

So why not build the whole app with this foundation, rather than hiding it in a niche corner of the app? When you open the app, you still land on the 'For You' tab which serves you a plate of sources you like the taste of.

Although Google – and others – have the capacity to incite positive change to the media landscape and democratise information to provide the world with more balanced news, Google News has the same problems as old news media, but in a modern format and with “light, easy, fast, and fun design choices.” Thanks for nothing, Google.

My Six Favourite Podcasts

A person, probably a woman, talking and smiling into
a generic microphone. Little does she know that she is
the cover image for a post on my blog

I don’t listen to much music but I spend a lot of time on public transport and walking around in London. What a predicament! So, instead of listening to traffic or attempting to make conversation with strangers on the tube, I opt to listen to some of the many podcasts that I’m subscribed to. Here are my six favourites. 

(Note: From my choices, I think it will become quite clear what my interests are)


Commons People
This is The Huffington Post’s weekly politics podcast. It is light-hearted, fun, and the presenters are humorous but knowledgeable. Every episode, after discussion of the top news stories, there is a quiz about a topic that has been relevant in the past week. My favourites quizzes from previous episodes are: ‘Grammar or Bog-standard’, where the journalists needed to try and guess whether said politicians attended grammar, state, or private schools. And the ‘Morgan or Less Than’ quiz, where the journalists (with the help of Heidi Allen MP) needed to guess whether said politicians had attended more or less fringe events than Nicky Morgan at the Conservative Party conference… (Now I write this, I realise just how nerdy it sounds)



Page 94: The Private Eye Podcast
This witty podcast hosted by QI elf and Private Eye writer Andrew Hunter Murray is my favourite podcast. Each episode features discussions on politics, investigative journalism, or Private Eye culture to produce a truly fascinating listen. Highlights, for me, include the special episode commemorating Ian Hislop’s 30 years as editor, the episode about the Panama Papers, and the episode on revolving doors in politics. Wry humour and perspicacious politics journalism are a winning combination.

The Weeds
The Weeds is a Vox.com podcast hosted by journalists Ezra Klein, Sarah Kliff, and Matthew Yglesias. In each episode, they dive deep into US policy and politics. The episodes are very thorough and are great if you're interested in more niche US political news.

Coffee House Shots
One of The Spectator’s many podcasts is this short, irregularly occurring one called ‘Coffee House Shots’. Compared to the rest, this is a relatively short podcast yet it manages to summarise and offer analysis on important political events that have happened lately. In recent episodes, Isabel Hardman and co have discussed the UK Supreme Court’s Brexit ruling, Theresa May’s ‘shared society’ speech, and the battle for press freedom. 



Chips with everything
Chips with everything is a technology podcast from The Guardian. It includes the kind of high quality content you would expect from The Guardian. Notable discussions from recent episodes include an interview with the former deputy social media director for the Hillary Clinton campaign and a feature on how the Y2K bug came about. I’d recommend this podcast for anyone who has even a vague interest in technology or technology culture as they cover a wide range of topics. 



Sound Show
Sound Show is a podcast birthed from Joshua Topolsky’s new culture news website ‘The Outline’. This podcast, hosted by sound director John Lagomarsino, is a joy to listen to. Enthralling content and unbeatable sound quality go hand in hand to make this podcast a pleasure for my ears. Just take a listen for yourself:




All podcasts mentioned, plus thousands more, can be found on the Apple Podcasts app and other popular podcast services.

The US media need to improve their Trump coverage

If you’ve dragged yourself out of bed at any point over the last few weeks, you will have heard about the ‘leaked' Russian dossier stating crude things that President Trump allegedly did in Moscow some years ago. Although many news sites admit that it had been on their radar for a while now, they had decided not to publish it because the provenance wasn’t even slightly credible. Enter BuzzFeed. 

BuzzFeed published the dossier and sparked a media frenzy as mainstream news organisations (such as the BBC and CNN) started to report the story too - admittedly, in a more delicate kind of way. In a press conference following the reports, President Trump slammed CNN as “fake news” and wouldn’t take their question whilst he condemned BuzzFeed as a “failing pile of garbage”.
 


CNN has a network that reaches millions of people every day meaning when they lay a blow in to President Trump, it has impact. However, if CNN continue to run with stories with little evidence to support it, the impact of their scrutiny will start to diminish. I use CNN as an example but this is the same for any news organisation which decided to report on the Russian dossier.

As for BuzzFeed, they've always been a lost cause in my eyes. I commend them for being a large part of the investigation that exposed the malpractice at Kids Company and for having such a large network. However, their habit of publishing sketchy stories and then saying “it’s up to the reader to decide whether it is true or not” undermines their status as a news organisation and makes the whole news industry untrustworthy.

Another reason, news organisations in general should clamp down on their coverage of Trump controversies is because none of them stick. He is a snake sliding effortlessly though a field of scandals. Analysis of newspaper headlines after the election showed that Clinton’s consistent criticism was for her deleted emails yet there were dozens of Trump scandals. Muslim-ban-gate, Mexicans-are-rapists-gate, sexual-assault-allegations-gate, women-who-have-abortions-should-be-punished-gate, and grab-them-by-the-pussy-gate - to name a few. 

Chart via Media Matters

The more scrutiny the better, right? Wrong. Unlike Clinton’s deleted emails, most of Trump’s scandals could only be explored superficially because it was only a matter of days before the next one came along. This meant that the significance of Clinton’s deleted email was blown way out of proportion because the coverage spanned many months.

If liberal news organisations are trying to turn Trump voters off Trump, they need to realise that controversies don’t repel his supporters. In fact, they make him appear politically incorrect thus anti-establishment (like what many Americans desire). Instead, news organisations should really start scrutinising his policy decisions. The first steps have already been made to repeal Obamacare which could cause 18 million people to lose health insurance. This is an issue which needs far more attention than what it is getting. By covering this extensively, the liberal media might win over some Trump voters but, more importantly, they would be doing an effective job of holding the President to account.

Credit where credit is due though, Vox is getting a name for itself producing in-depth policy analysis. Just before the Obama administration ended they held an hour-long interview on Obamacare and its future. Plus, they have recently also published pieces on possible Supreme Court nominations, Trump killing the TPP free trade deal, and Trump’s plan to cut Medicade. These are all matters of serious substance which need scrutinising and exploring in order for voters to understand what Trump’s administration is achieving. Sadly, at the moment, not many news organisations are rising to that challenge and instead opt to publish the platitude entertaining scandal stories.

To conclude, although it acts as excellent click-bait, the media should try and report less on the next alleged Trump scandal and, instead, home in on the many executive orders he has been signing this week and what they will mean for the American people. As for BuzzFeed, they should go back to publishing quizzes about which character from Friends I would be – and nothing else.

Sources: Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/17/18-million-would-lose-insurance-in-first-year-of-obamacare-repeal-without-replacement-cbo-report-says/?utm_term=.70853fcd142f,  Media Matters http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/11/04/study-top-newspapers-give-clinton-email-story-more-coverage-all-other-trump-stories/214309

City students vote to ban The Sun, Express, and Daily Mail

City University students have voted to ban newspapers including The Sun, Express, and Daily Mail, saying they have “no place” on campus.

The motion, aimed at opposing fascism and social divisiveness in the UK media, argue that the three newspapers in question “demonise refugees and minorities” and “actively scapegoat the working classes.”

The newspapers in question give a platform to far-right figures such as Nigel Farage, Richard Littlejohn, and Katie Hopkins; people who City students argue shout not have a voice in the mainstream media.

The newspapers’ front page headlines have also stirred controversy recently. The Daily Mail dubbed three senior judges “Enemies of the People” after they ruled that Parliament should have a say on Brexit. Earlier this month, the Express compared the court’s Brexit decision to a crisis on the same level as World War Two.

This decision to ban the newspaper comes only weeks after Lego announced that they would no longer be using the Daily Mail for free giveaways. The lobbying group ‘Stop Funding Hate’ is urging John Lewis, Waitrose and Marks & Spencer to do the same.

The City University motion also resolved that University contacts in the media industry should reach out to journalists and shareholders of the three newspapers in question.

Esteemed Sunday Times columnist Camilla Long tweeted that City’s decision to ban the three papers is “100% pathetic.” Many more argue that it will be a breach of freedom of speech if the University attempts to dictate what students can read and cannot read.

According to The Guardian, some journalism students at City are threatening to pull of the union in protest against the decision. City has a renowned journalism department and many graduates go on to find jobs working for the Sun, Mail or Express.

It is unclear how City will attempt to ban the newspapers. The journalism department has already stated that they will not block students’ access to the newspapers. Furthermore, some students find the notion absurd that walking through campus evening holding the Daily Mail might be against the rules soon.

Although student unions around the country have previously boycotted The Sun in protest of topless page three models, a blanket ban of three major newspapers has never been done before. The consensus on this ban appears to be: if students don’t want to read The Sun, Daily Mail, or Express, they simply shouldn’t buy it.

The dire state of mainstream media

Mainstream media in the UK is corrupt, bias, and ineffective. The newspapers and news websites have the power to draw attention to important issues but most of the time choose not to. Furthermore, their affiliations with political parties and history of tailoring reporting for the interests of their advertisers make them unreliable and subjective. This cannot continue.

Left or Right
Titles including The Sun, The Times, The Sunday Times, The Daily Mail and The Telegraph all endorsed the Conservative party in the 2015 general election. Whilst on the other side of the spectrum, The Guardian and The Observer endorsed the Labour party. In this current climate where political education is paramount for an understanding of current affairs (refugee crisis, EU referendum, junior doctors’ strikes, air strikes in Syria), completely balanced, open, and honest political journalism is necessary but some, if not all, of the papers mentioned above have taken an angle which distorts the truth to make one party appear better than another. How can people be expected to educate themselves about the world if their newspapers aren't trustworthy?

By all means, journalists should be allowed to express their own political opinion however they should be expressed in columns rather than in the news segment. The newspapers themselves should aim to remain politically neutral. Additionally, although I believe that scrutiny is good for democracy, when journalists are slandering a party or person simply to appease the readership and follow paper’s line it is unnecessary and unacceptable.


Advertisers
Powerful publishers also have concerning relationships with advertisers. Many news websites have been criticised in the past for not making it clear which articles are sponsored and Buzzfeed has been accused of removing content which is critical of their advertisers in the past - although they firmly deny this.

Appreciate the criticism. We just reinstated two posts and I sent this note to staffers. pic.twitter.com/YodxHiQmt2

— Ben Smith (@BuzzFeedBen) April 10, 2015

The Interactive Advertising Bureau showed mock adverts to 5000 people and learnt that 59% of the respondents thought it was “not very clear” or “not at all clear” that the content they were shown was sponsored. When content is curated with the primary purpose to advertise rather than inform and the reader is not able to easily identify this, there is something fundamentally wrong.

The most concerning example of advertiser intervention was in February 2015 when The Daily Telegraph omitted coverage of the HSBC scandal because they were advertisers with the paper. The chief political commentator for the newspaper, Peter Osborne, stood down after this happened. He later wrote "Newspapers have what amounts in the end to a constitutional duty to tell their readers the truth."

So how can advertiser interference be eliminated altogether? Some news websites have a paywall on articles so after the first paragraph of an article, readers need to pay a subscription fee to unlock the rest. However, many readers are not willing to pay for news that they can read for free elsewhere.


The Spinach of News
The 'clickbait' nature of online headlines means that important issues are not read about. This problem can be blamed on the desire for fresh content and short attention span of the readers as much as it can be blamed on the writers.

The media was criticised extensively for apparently ignoring the Beirut bombings in November 2015 which occurred a day before the Paris attacks. However, in reality the coverage did exist however readers weren’t interested in it. Max Fisher (Foreign Editor for Vox.com) writes: "The media has, in fact, covered the Beirut bombings extensively. Yet these are stories that, like so many stories of previous bombings and mass acts of violence outside of the West, readers have largely ignored.”

Readers have been in this habit of only reading Western world news for so long, news websites have given up on trying to promote the content altogether. Kardashians, Katy Hopkins, and Celebrity Big Brother comprise the headlines more than stories of any real substance. However, from the publisher’s point of view, it's only rational to to publicise the popular material on their front page which will draw in the most traffic.

Making world news more attractive to read is an issue that needs addressing however I’m not sure if anyone has the answers. Attaching a misleading clickbait-esk headline to articles is definitely not the moral or respectful way to do this.


Political parties and advertisers should not be able to influence content whatsoever. And the problem of shining a light on the less popular but critical aspects of the news needs to be addressed so it is made popular but in a balanced, tasteful way.

Sources: BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8282189.stm), The Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/cmo/2014/07/22/sponsored-content-isnt-always-clearly-labelled-research-suggests/), Open Democracy (https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph), Vox (http://www.vox.com/2015/11/16/9744640/paris-beirut-media)

'Medium' blogging platform

The 'Medium' home page

Medium is a beautiful, sleek blogging platform which will makes content look outstanding. Easy to read fonts, big beautiful images and unique page design all complement each-other perfectly like how blogging websites should be to make posts look crisp and clean - with nothing to distract readers from the words.

The clean layout of posts

Medium.com was founded in Summer 2012 by a man who used to work for Twitter. Since then it has became one of the most popular blogging platforms.

Once you've signed up with your Twitter account you are presented with a simple blank page with few options. You write a heading, subheading, select a picture for the title background and then write your story. There are also various formatting tools you can use before clicking the 'Publish' button to let anyone in the world read what you've got to say. You can also submit your words into a category so there is a higher chance of more people going to read it. 

A differentiation from other blogging sites is that on Medium posts are sorted by category rather than author. This has its advantages and disadvantages. Advantages: if you are a reader who wants to read up on a specific topic it is a brilliant tool and the collections are monitored by fellow users of the website. Disadvantages: all of the blogger's home page displaying only their articles can not be modified much apart from a header and profile picture. Medium is a gimmick free blogger's dream.

An example of the design language used for posts

You are engrossed in stories on Medium about whatever interests you and the site works a little like a news website with the most popular stories and your personal recommendations being displayed on the home screen. All pages follow the same design code as well. This means, unlike Blogger, WordPress, Tumblr and other blogging sites, your space on Medium looks rather impersonal. So if think you can manage having a blog without widgets, advertisements and links; if you are just about the pure content, then Medium is definitely for you.

Everything on the website is simple yet powerful at the same time. Things are displayed in a very basic manor however it still gives you everything you need. For example, under the 'Stats' menu, you are not bombarded with as much information like what you might get with other sites - however it is all there and displayed elegantly.

If you are looking for a modern way to share your stories on the internet, Medium is definitely the way to go. The site seems to have an awesome community and is straight forward to use. What more could you want from a blogging website?