Nieman Lab 2015 Predictions for Journalism

Last week I delivered the first lecture in our Introduction to Journalism unit. I am building on the material that my colleague, Caroline Fisher, developed in 2014. One of the things about teaching journalism is that every example has to be ‘up to date’. One of the things that Caroline discussed in the 2014 lecture were the predictions for 2014 as presented by the Nieman Lab.

The Nieman Lab is a kind of journalism think tank, clearing house and site of experimentation. At the end of each year they ask professionals and journalism experts to suggest what they think is going to happen in journalism the next year.

Incorporating these predictions into a lecture is a good way to indicate to students what some professionals and experts think are going to be the big trends, changes and events in journalism for that year. (The anticipatory logic of predictions about near-future events has become a genre of journalism/media content that I briefly discuss in a forthcoming journal article. See what I did there.)

To analyse the the 65 predictions for 2015 in a lecture that only goes for an hour would be almost impossible. What I did instead was to carry out a little exercise in data journalism to introduce students to the practical concepts of ‘analytics’, ‘website scraping’, and the capacity to ‘tell a story through data’.

Nieman Lab
Nieman Lab 2015 Predictions

I created a spreadsheet using Outwit Hub Pro that scraped the author’s name, the title of the piece, the brief one or two line intro and the number of Twitter and Facebook shares. I wanted to know how many times each prediction had been shared on social media. This could then serve as a possible indicator of whether readers though the prediction was worth sharing through at least one or two of their social media networks. By combining the number of shares I could then have a very approximate way to measure which predictions readers of the site had the most value.

Spreadsheet shares
Here is the spreadsheet created through Outwit Hub Pro,

I have uploaded the table of the Nieman Lab Journalism Predictions 2015 to Google Drive. The table has some very quick and simple coding of each of the predictions so as to capture some sense of what area of journalism the prediction is discussing.

The graph resulting from this table indicates that there were four predictions that were shared more than twice the number of times compared to the other 61 predictions. The top three stories had almost three times the number of shares.

combined social shares
The four predictions with the highest number of shares clearly standout from the rest.

Here are the four stories with the total number of combined shares:

  1. Diversity: Don’t talk about it, be about it                              1652
  2. The beginning of the end of Facebook’s traffic engine 1617
  3. The year we get creeped out by algorithms                        1529
  4. A wave of P.R. data                                                                             1339

I was able to then present these four links to my students and suggest that it was worth investigating why these four predictions were shared so many more times than the other 61 predictions.

In the most shared prediction, Aaron Edwards forgoes the tech-based predictions that largely shape the other pieces and instead argues that media organizations need to take diversity seriously:

I guess I could pivot here to talk about the future of news in 2015 being about mobile and personalization. (I would geek out about both immensely.) I suppose I could opine on how the reinvention of the article structure to better accommodate complex stories like Ferguson will be on every smart media manager’s mind, just as it should have been in 2014, 2013, and 2003.
But let’s have a different kind of real talk, shall we?
My prediction for the future of news in 2015 is less of a prediction and more of a call of necessity. Next year, if organizations don’t start taking diversity of race, gender, background, and thought in newsrooms seriously, our industry once again will further alienate entire populations of people that aren’t white. And this time, the damage will be worse than ever.

It was a different kind of prediction compared to the others on offer. Most people who work in the news-based media industry have been tasked with demonstrating a permanent process of professional innovation. Edwards piece strips back the tech-based rhetoric and gets at the heart of what media organizations need to be doing so as to properly address all audiences.  “The excuse that it’s ‘too hard’ to find good journalists of diverse backgrounds is complete crap.”

The second most shared piece, on the limitations of over-relying on Facebook as a driver of traffic, fits perfectly with the kind of near-future prediction that we have come to expect. Gnomic industry forecasting flips the causal model with which we are  familiar — we are driven by ‘history’ and it is the ‘past’ (past traumas, past successes, etc) that define our current character — so that it draws on the future as a kind of tech-mediated collective subconscious. Rather than being haunted by the past, we are haunted by possible futures of technological and organisational change.

My favourite piece among all the predictions is Zeynep Tufekci who suggests that things are going to get weird when our devices start to operate as if animated by a human intelligence. She suggests that “algorithmic judgment is the uncanny valley of computing“:

Algorithms are increasingly being deployed to make decisions where there is no right answer, only a judgment call. Google says it’s showing us the most relevant results, and Facebook aims to show us what’s most important. But what’s relevant? What’s important? Unlike other forms of automation or algorithms where there’s a definable right answer, we’re seeing the birth of a new era, the era of judging machines: machines that calculate not just how to quickly sort a database, or perform a mathematical calculation, but to decide what is “best,” “relevant,” “appropriate,” or “harmful.”

Education and Cluster Funded Explanations

The way fields of knowledge are split into teaching and research clusters in higher education in Australia is confusing . We have Field of Research codes through which we align our research outputs with disciplinary groupings and we have Field of Education codes through which the government analyses student numbers, teaching performances and funding. They don’t always line up, which causes some headaches for staffing and management. In the context of the current shake-up to education funding, FOR and FOE mismatch is the least of anyone’s worries.

The proposed overhaul of funding tiers so they are reduced and reorganised from eight tiers to five has changed the amount of funding universities receive for each Commonwealth Supported Place (CSP). As part of the current series of investigative hearings of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee of Senate Estimates, various senators asked questions about the proposed changes to education funding arrangements.

Below is an exchange from Thursday 5 June 2014 between Senator Rhiannon and various public servant representatives (page 55 of the pdf):

Communications tiers

To explain Mr Warburton and Ms Paul’s respective answers, and then why the answers are wrong, requires understanding the structure of Field of Education codes.

The Field of Education codes have a tree like structure. The 12 two digit codes begin with 01 Natural and Physical Sciences, then 02 Information technology, and end with 11 Food, Hospitality and Personal Services and 12 Mixed Field Programmes. From each of these two digit FOE codes it then separates into four digit codes. Senator Rhiannon was asking about why some of the disciplines in the four digit FOE of 1007 Communication and Media Studies (in the larger two digit FOE of 10 Creative Arts) in the current proposal were being funded at different rates.

The four-digit codes then split into six-digit codes. In the current proposal, the six-digit FOE 100701 Audio Visual Studies is in a higher funding tier than the other four six-digit FOE areas:

100703 Journalism
100705 Written Communication
100707 Verbal Communication
100799 Communication and Media Studies not elsewhere classified

To explain this discrepancy Mr Warburton and Ms Paul both gesture towards the major 2011 report into funding arrangements, Base Funding Review.

The closest any part of the Base Funding Review report comes to supporting their comments is a section across pages 56-57 that deals with funding of the Visual and Performing Arts in the context of student-intensive studio and project-based modes of teaching:

The disparity in costs for FOE 10 (creative arts) between institutions suggests that it may need to be split between funding clusters with visual and performing arts moved to a funding cluster with a higher rate.

I can’t find anywhere in the Base Funding Review where it drills down to four digit FOE detail, let alone the detail required for an analysis at a six-digit FOE level that would make Mr Warburton and Ms Paul’s answer sufficient.

In my investigation into Mr Warburton and Ms Paul’s answer I realised there is a much bigger problem with the current policy proposal to separate funding into the proposed FOE-based tiers:

What is the relation between the level of macro detail of the two-digit FOEs in the 2011 Base Funding Review to the level of detail in the current budget proposal that differentiates funding on the basis of four-digit FOE and even six-digit FOE code clusters? 

The 2011 Base Funding Review report and material does not provide an answer.

A large amount of explanatory information in the Base Funding Review report is provided by 161 submissions and from what I can gather none of these submissions provides the level of overview in the detail required to substantiate Mr Warburton and Ms Paul’s respective claims.

The Deloitte Access Economics report that is part of the supplementary material of the Base Funding Review report seems to be the basis of much of the non-submission-based material. The Deloitte report actually creates its own 19 groups based on aggregating combinations of two-, four- and six-digit FOEs. The report states, “Given the sheer number of 6 digit FOEs (more than 300) it was deemed appropriate to estimate the model based on an aggregation of clusters and bands to form ‘groups’” (21). The FOE two-digit code of 10 is simply regarded as ‘Art’ it seems. Again, there is no supporting material for Mr Warburton and Ms Paul’s respective claims that the separation of funding tiers is derived from the 2011 Base Funding Review.

Where is the detail for how these funding decisions were made?

By the way, one of the recommendations to government from the 2011 Base Funding Review regarding funding:

The Australian Government should address the identified areas of underfunding in the disciplines of accounting, administration, economics, commerce, medicine, veterinary science, agriculture, dentistry, and visual and performing arts, and should consider increasing the funding level for humanities and law.

 

Drones in the Cloud: Attending to Snapchat

I don’t know enough about you
To be kind, to be kind to you
Don’t you even think about me
Cymbals, “The Natural World”

The Cymbals’ electro-pop lament of unrequited attention (‘love’) has the same furtively repetitive energetics of yearning through ‘refresh’. Refresh the inbox, refresh the stream, refresh the wall. Repeat. Has the person responded? “Here is my attention; take it.” The “I” of the song is a single contact in a series of contacts presented as the natural world (or ‘milieu’) belong to the song’s second-person “you”.[1. As this reviewer on Pitchfork described the track, it is a “witty, sweat-salty pop song about the peculiarities of media-drenched modern life”.]

The expectation of being attended to is held by the “you” but it is also shared by the “I”. Obviously, the expectation is not held in the same way. Two perspectives on the same expectation indicates a certain kind of power relation. Teachers and students are meant to share expectations of what will happen in a classroom, but they will have radically different perspectives. The flip-side to the alleged passivity of narcissism consists of the capacity to excite or agitate the world. ‘Agitate’ not in the sense of arguing — there is that too, however — but more in the sense of an ‘agitator’ sometimes used as part of the viticulture process in great wine baths to ensure that the elements in solution continue mixing (and fermenting and so on). What does this mean?

There is a labour of sharing that requires an intensive strategic infrastructure to distribute collective expectations in asymmetric relations of attending and being attended to. The technology is part of this; ‘living with notifications’ in the same way you’d say living with some potentially painful but treatable condition. Snapchat operates purely in this realm. It is not what is shared so much as the anticipation of sharing. The just-in-time sociality of online relations often encourages a temporality not unlike the rhythm of waves, in the silent way the tide draws out the body of water — gathering in the potentiality of repetitive anticipation. Like the way a comedian waits for the audience to ‘get it’ (hoping beyond hope that their gag is, indeed, gettable).[2. I often feel very awkward around people when it is apparent they are not ‘getting it’, but that is something else…]

You decide what you want from me
We can hear the passing of time
And the sound that is in your mind
— Cymbals, “The Natural World”

The second-person “you” has a spectral composition, distributed across her agitations. (Obviously I am using ‘her’ when it very well might be a ‘him’; I know I present such a persona online sometimes.[4. EDIT a few hours later: For ironic emphasis I posted this image to Instagram and to Snapchat today with different text components. Not sure if anyone got the irony in the context of this blog post. A few people got extra annoyed at me thinking I was sexting them. I guess an ironic sext (not that it is a sext as such), is still a sext.]) Being attended to can therefore be experienced as endured, where the causal relation begins elsewhere; essentially, a passive relation to the actions of others. This is an abdication of responsibility, however. Participation in the anticipatory economy of sharing attentions is at the same time an impersonal cultivation of personal relations. This is a kind of existential wriggle. Impersonal because “you” engage with the cloud, which is nevertheless populated by (im)personal intentionalities.

Does the cloud have a face? What is the faciality of the cloud? I am tempted to suggest it is the drone: a being of pure intentionality — always a mission, always a target, its cybernetic perspective is pure HUD, baby — but one that is remote-controlled. Control is displaced across space for drone pilots; for the Cymbals’ “you” it is displaced across time in the anticipatory economy of sharing. The moral crisis of drone warfare is repeated online in the ethics of being attended to. The question of agency is therefore very tricky in such a scenario as it implies a degree of responsibility. What happens when the drones come home to roost? Can you be seduced by a drone?

Drone

A further, more pressing question presents itself: What if, instead of two people, the Cymbals’ track describes a process belonging to a single person?

That is, the agitations in question do not belong to some other (online) realm or ‘world’, but constitute that through which one’s subjectivity is individuated. I don’t know enough about myself to know if my own remote-controlled agitations are returning, repeating their anticipations. This would be the McLuhanist point (the way media technology “massages” the “human”): am I drone of my own affectations, a being of pure HUD intentionality, perpetually remote-controlled by a future version of myself (assembled by expectation and gathered through anticipation)?[4. Is this a mechanism to produce the absence of immediacy, most acutely experienced as the immediacy of personal responsibility?]

 

Dinner text

Friends texting each other about dinner. Got me thinking condiments and their status as objects. it made me realise the dinner as a differential repetition of the event ‘to eat’ (also ‘to transduct’) is a kind of limit point of passage (‘point of no return’ is also such a limit point of passage, but I am thinking more ‘point of repetition but in different ways’). Here is what I wrote:

At what point does a condiment become an ingredient? Is it a question of scale? Or intent? Is vegemite an ingredient? What about ingredients of vegemite do they become ingredients of something else made with vegemite? At what point is such an assessment made? Just before it enters your body? Or is it entirely premised on the realising the eventualities of market exchange (or, to put it less harshly, the logistics of preparation)? I’d argue it is all irrelevant with matters being the social practice or action ‘to eat’ — an event, actualised in any number of ways. The ingredients then are not subsumed according to genus or class but the democracy of participating in the event (even if they are normatively destroyed through consumption or transduced into other forms of energy). Belonging is not a fiction created by market exchange premised on the ideology of choice (condiment or ingredient) but conjuring of a sufficient meal, an ethics of being worthy of the event.

Walkleys Conference Notes — Google and New York Times presentations

From my iPhone, WordPress backend interface a bit tricky!

Google Australia Communications and Public Affairs Manager Johnny Luu presents Google 101 for Journalists, covering tips and tricks for using various Google tools, advanced search methods, finding and analysing trends, and creating data visualisations.

Search smarter tips & tricks

Algorithm

Results page

-Fact box, breakout
-Ads, like editorial & advertising
Advanced search functions
-search for time and date
-search for different forms of media
-search in other languages & google translate
-search within a particular site
-search with a particular domain
-search for a certain filetype:
-John Tedesco example sanantonio.gov damage claims
-Go to advanced search feature
Keeping your finger on the pulse
-hangover example, Saturday peaks
-Gillard vs Abbott search term popularity
-news headlines option match up with graph
-insulation scheme trends
-Australian university Indian searches drop off, violence and visa changes
google.org flu trends example
-YouTube advanced search
Data journalism and visualisations
-google fusion tables
-download trainer
-San Francisco bike accidents google.org
The New York Times Interactive News Editor Aron Pilhofer discusses the latest methods of engaging readers by blending editorial content with social media, interactive data journalism and other digital innovations.
Break the template to fix it
-future lives outside the CMS
-just one more game
-Olympics example, river of news, bring in social media, bring the data/results
-photos page
-schoolbook example, local education featured education content, get people not through our homepage, incorporate comments elevated comments
Building for mobile
-work has tripled, 45-47% traffic came through mobile on election night
Readers have come expect interactivity
-dump the days paper online
-database interpretation of blog
-question and answer format
-reporters dedicated to answering q during debates
Social is a second homepage
-Oscar ballot, Oscar party in a box
-why replicate something exists in the world
-using Facebook as part of the platform
-sharing your contribution to the page, rather than sharing the ‘page’