SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the can-we-get-this-on-all-the-pages dept.
Lily Hay Newman reports that when big news stories evolve into tragedies and people are flocking to read the latest bulletins online, many major newspapers have measures in place so there isn't a dancing Geico newt competing with dire news. The NYT confirmed that the site has a manual switch that can put individual articles in "sensitivity" mode. The settings seem to be either standard, "noads," or finally "tragedy," depending on the content of the story.
In the case of Germanwings Flight 4U 9525, the Times eventually upgraded to tragedy. "It’s interesting in part because it’s almost an acknowledgement that ads are invasive and uncomfortable," says Parker Higgins referring to the meta tag: meta property="ad_sensitivity" content="noads". "There are no Google results for the tag, so it looks like it hasn’t been documented," says Parker, "but it seems like a pretty low-tech way to keep possibly insensitive ads off a very sensitive story—an admirable effort." After all, the Internet is filled with lists of unfortunate ad placements, and the worst ones are probably upbeat ads intruding on solemn moments. "In these types of tragedy cases, it’s an editorial decision that we make," says a spokeswoman for CNN Digital.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 31 2015, @01:53AM
Where the heck does that expectation of TV news stations come from? It seems to ignore 3 basic facts about situations like this:
1. The vast majority of viewers can do absolutely nothing useful about it. Those that can do something useful will be informed in other ways (e.g. first responders will be called by their bosses to get to work). Therefor, the benefit of that "full-time coverage" is at best essentially 0, and at worst negative (because news organizations frequently make mistakes in situations like this).
2. The news organization has basically no expertise in the matter at hand, and is slowing down the efforts of those who do have expertise by trying to get hold of them to issue statements.
3. The loved ones of those affected will also be contacted by other means. Meanwhile, you've created a lot of fear among everyone who thinks that their loved ones could have been among those affected, and if it's a big enough disaster you also just jammed the communications networks to the affected area as millions of panicky idiots call anyone they can think of near where it happened, making it harder for emergency crews to get the information they need.
They really need to get to a model where they do this instead:
1. State the basics of what happened. Leave it on a ticker at the bottom if necessary.
2. Provide basic advice for what viewers should or should not do in response. For example, advise viewers to avoid an area, or board up windows before a storm arrives.
3. Let those who have the responsibility and training to respond do their jobs.
4. Tell everyone more detailed and useful information when you have it.
A lot of news organizations have decided that being first is more valuable than being right, and that idea does a great deal of harm.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by NoMaster on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:55AM
It comes from the TV news stations themselves. It makes them seem important, relevant, and leaves you with the subtle impression that they - and they alone - are 'your one reliable source for all breaking news'.
Those of us who are (a) older, and (b) not so old that our memories are fading, remember a time when they didn't drop everything and go to non-stop rolling coverage everytime some Timmy fell down some well...
Live free or fuck off and take your naïve Libertarian fantasies with you...
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:52PM
... although some have come to the conclusion that there's not *that* much difference between Wolf Blitzer's reporting and Lassie's!
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.