Media change deniers, Elon Musk’s ‘credibility score’, and the Daphne Project

Our personal weekly selection about journalism and innovation.

Our personal weekly selection about journalism and innovation. Stay up to date by following our Telegram channel or by subscribing to our Newsletter, and join the conversation on Facebook and Twitter.

edited by Marco Nurra

Be careful with ‘media change deniers’… Why debates around news need a better evidence base. “Do you think that most people who get news via social media are caught in filter bubbles? Do you believe that online news use is more fragmented than offline news consumption? That young people will never pay for online news? Or that bots are the main drivers of disinformation online? If so, your views are based on arguments advanced by media change deniers — pundits who, like climate change deniers, are doubling down on arguments that are directly contradicted by a growing consensus in the best available peer-reviewed scientific research,” warns Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, Director of Research at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (RISJ) at the University of Oxford. “If we let media change deniers drive the conversation, the result will be dumber journalism, less-informed public debate, and ineffective and counterproductive public policy.”

Should we be rating journalism? Space-and-street entrepreneur Elon Musk mused about setting up a crowdsourced service that rates the credibility of journalists. His suggestion of a “credibility score” is worth discussing because building one is actually a pretty popular idea — especially among Silicon Valley types. Here are four serious questions about it by Alexios Mantzarlis, Director of the the International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter.

Politicians in Europe are still arguing about what fake news is and what to do about it. Much of the global conversation around “fake news” has centered on the United States. Yet it increasingly seems that actions in the European Union may have a more lasting effect on the misinformation ecosystem. For that reason, this Poynter report summarizes press coverage on the topic from or about the EU.

Emily Bell on platforms: “Regulation is inevitable. Banning targeted advertising is not going to happen but we do have to think about what sort of rules need to be developed in a world where we all receive messages which are personal and often confidential.”

Germany’s attempt to fix Facebook is backfiring. Right-wing politicians are pouncing on an ambitious law seeking to curb hate speech online.

Partisan trolls are attacking Facebook’s latest fact-checking partners. Facebook’s fact-checking tool was rolled out in Brazil last week in partnership with Aos Fatos and Agência Lupa. A flood of accusations of “censorship,” and “extreme-left bias” followed. More worrying still were personal attacks and heavy insults leveled against fact-checkers on social media.

The Daphne Project: “Even if you stop a messenger, you will not stop the message”. The Committee for the Protection of Journalists counts 1304 killed reporters that they know of since 1992. Life-taking as a form of ultimate censorship is being challenged by a new wave of solidarity. How cross-border collaborations are working to maintain a free press in the face of political pressure.

After crowdfunding success, Swiss magazine Republik charts a course to “reclaim journalism as a profession.” “We believe people don’t pay for articles anymore. They pay to be part of the community.”

How The Washington Post is building its tech platform, Arc. But implementing new digital infrastructure or support is an enormous hassle.