This week: social media
The dead-tree press is increasingly using so-called "social media" to promote content. It can be a daunting, confusing, often sticky experience, but using the "internet", or "webb", to your advantage is becoming an important part of proper journalism (the kind you read in newspapers).
With just four simple steps you'll be able to force your made up rubbish into the faces of millions of "surfers" - your editor will thank you for the extra readers!
Step 1: Make up some nonsense as usual, either by literally just inventing a story or by twisting some new directive/announcement/press release beyond all recognition to fit your agenda. In our example, we'll take a rather boring guideline update issued by Watford Council and pretend it's politicalcorrectnessgonemad. Add the keyword "paedophile" if the story involves children to really get people going.
Step 2: Once your piffle has been published, the fun begins! Ensure that readers are unable to vent their outrage (or correct you) on the article itself by turning comments off, but adding super-handy "meeja" buttons. This will encourage people to rant about your article in other internetual places, thus compelling others to visit your page to see what all the fuss is about.
Note: Don't give people the option to share your story on Twitter - it's a dangerous place where agendas are picked apart by orchestrated mobs and the truth uncovered by annoying web pixies. You're far safer with more modern options like MySpace and Fark.
Step 3: Syndicate and localize your content. By sending your story to local news comics like the London Metro, you make it seem like politicalcorrectnessgonemad is truly on your readers' doorstep. The more scared or angry they are, the more likely they are to share it when they get home or to the office.
Step 4: Now it's time to let your imaginary case of politicalcorrectnessgonemad go viral. This can be a frightening prospect - what if one of these interweb people finds out it's all a load of invented rubbish? What if the council itself issues a statement revealing that you made it up? Not to worry! You can rely on the heavy-weight bloggers (the same ones, coincedentally, we promote as the foremost authorities on blogging), to be taken in by your story however nonsensical it is!
By this point you can rest assured that your agenda was so compelling that the internet people were willing to lack past the gaping holes in reason and ignore the vast chasms of bollocks upon which your story was based. The important thing - the subtext - has gone viral.
Step 5: The beauty of "social media" is that there is no step 5! Sit back and relax as the heavyweight bloggers who didn't bother to check if your story was actually true twitter it for you. Your made up bollocks will now be discussed, retweeted and relinked by the blogger's friends and associates - your imaginary case of politicalcorrectnessgonemad has become real.
It's important to remember that making your story go viral with "social media" is mainly about appearing innovative and cutting edge rather than actually increasing traffic by any meaningful amount. In this case, for instance, we only gained 63 extra visits and half of those were probably people laughing at Iain Dale for recycling made up news. Such are the dangers of Twitter.
But don't lose heart! The important thing is that your story got re-recycled in the blogosphere and commenters blindly agreed with their blogger lord that, yes, politicalcorrectness has indeed gonemad. Even if those readers didn't visit your story, you still managed to indirectly convince them that Britain is going to hell in a handcart and it's all the fault of those darn lefties.
Result!
Update: Bonus churnalism from the Graun and Heresy Corner (tagline: 'Countering complacency, received opinions and incoherant thought')
No one seems to have suggessted that the parents go to one of the other 40 or so parks instead.
ReplyDeleteVery well, I'll bite, since you so kindly quote my motto.
ReplyDeleteIf there's one thing even more irritating than the exaggerated recycling of "political correctness gone mad" stories by the Mail etc, it's the smug dismissal of these stories, most of which have at least a kernel of verifiable fact, by sneering Lefties who can't get beyond lazy prejudices. This phenomenon was visible in abundance here, especially Sunny's piece on LibCon - but also, more understandably (if not excusably), from Lib Dems embarrassed by the Watford fiasco.
This story did not arise from nowhere. It was not "made up". It arose (as if you read my follow-up piece, which was very far from being "churnalism", you will be aware) from complaints by parents who suddenly found themselves excluded from playground facilities where they had previously been allowed. The Watford Observer investigated, and approached the Council and the Mayor for comments. They (not the WO, they) cited child protection issues, and Ofcom guidelines, and the mayor herself wrote a frankly hysterical blog about children being abducted. And of course there were no such guidelines. The council might have had good reasons for excluding parents, but when the WO approached them for comment, they DID NOT GIVE GOOD REASONS. They gave inaccurate and offensive reasons. That's why it became a national story. It wasn't the Mail's fault (they regurgitated the WO), it certainly wasn't Dale's (though he did, I agree, go a bit over the top; just not as OTT as the mayor of Watford).
Thank you for taking the time to explain the madness behind Watford's political correctness, kind Heresiarch, but I fear you may have misunderstood the guide.
ReplyDeleteAs you rightly point out, the story was not 'made up'. In step 1 we gave budding hacks the option to either make up a story or twist a local Government announcement. It must be said that making things up is preferable as it affords greater scope for realy juicy journalism, but in our example we looked at what was, I think you'll agree, an inarguably boring guideline update and how to turn it into something deliciously outrageous.
You note that such turgid announcements invariably have a kernal of truth to them. This is correct. However, we're not particularly interested in the truth as it's usually quite dull and doesn't sell papers. The art is in making such things newsworthy, which was demonstrated admirably by the Mail with their excellent use of the word 'paedophiles'. We then looked at the shrewd use of social media - again using Associated Newspapers titles - to spread the news. As Mr Dale pointed out in his own post, he learned of the story in the Metro, so we can judge AP's syndication strategy a success.
The crux of the guide was how to use social media to add a few extra readers to your newspaper article. Like Ebola crossing the species barrier, the story jumped from the Metro to Iain's diary, and from there to other interweb places including your own. Thus, the whole operation was a triumph of cross-platform news coverage. As mentioned in the guide, most people ignored the vast chasms of bollocks contained in the Mail and Iain's pieces but still lapped it up - the sign of effective use of social media.
Whether the Watford Observer reported facts or nonsense is a matter of little import, as that publication is periphery to our guide (again, see step 1 and previous guides).
As for 'sneering Lefties' and 'lazy prejudices', we're not entirely sure what you mean. There is little to be found in the guide that might be described as even remotely 'Lefty', and as you may see from the image of our mascot at the top of this page, we try to keep our left wing covered by the glory of England at all times.
With love,
D. Quail
Actually, I got it from Henry Porter. I rarely read Dale. He doesn't control the blogosphere any more than Stephen Fry rules Twitter, though he often give the impression that he thinks he does.
ReplyDeleteBut I'll forgive you, because your send up of Jan Moir was the first, and much the best, response to that particular piece of nonsense. You've got La Bindle spot on, too.
Sadly I only saw Porter's wordjaculation after reading about it elsewhere. His version's even more teeth-gratingly awful than the Mail's for bringing in the Human Rights element. If only there were hours enough in the day to pick apart CiF.
ReplyDeleteRe: your second post ('Watford playgrounds fiasco - an update') I still maintain far too much was made by press and bloggers of the council's original decision. That's not to say the original decision was perfectly reasonable or, indeed, well handled, but the palpable glee of the Mail and Dale to jump on the story to reinforce their own agendas is well worth mocking in itself. That the whole thing was furthered and spread about the blogo/twito -verse largely due to reactionary ignorance is what prompted the guide.
Plus, there really is no justification for writing a post based entirely on 'what I read in the Metro - you couldn't make it up!', knowing full well thousands of readers will take your misguided word as gospel. And then not clarifying it after being corrected. Even though you're clearly reading the comments.